Mueller Investigation pt 7

[dirtywick]

He could have recommended an indictment or even stated a crime was committed. He wouldn’t even go that far. Particularly in his disastrous congressional testimony where at times he simply refused to explain himself. And at times he seemed cognizant of political climates, such as giving up on securing an interview with DJT or refusing to subpoena despite the written answers containing lies, or why we still don’t know what the Trump tower meeting was about, yet wanted to stay apolitical as possible at other times, including a congressional interview where he would say almost nothing beyond what was in his incomplete report. And honestly, the report is incomplete partially due to his own choices. He also didn’t pursue anything dealing with Trumps taxes and finances which is ridiculous and a major component of why Trump did what he did.

Anyway the OLC memo said he couldn’t charge him with a crime. He chose to take it beyond that and refused to say that a crime had been committed, despite having all the evidence needed to do that. And so be released an incomplete report that failed to reach any sort of conclusion and then refused to clarify any of it when asked. That was his biggest failure in my opinion.

 

[eerok]

I don't know if rehashing Mueller's every move is the most interesting thing to be done here. I'm just glad that the good work he did (and there was quite a bit) is now coming back into relevance. My opinion back when was that this would mean something someday, and here we are.

We can't go back, which is just as well, because idiots were in charge. We can go forward, and possibly make some of them pay for their crimes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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."

That was also my interpretation and not a quote.

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.

I don't see anything suggesting what he found in the report made him biased before he started the investigation. It makes no sense.

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.

And that was wishy-washy. I'll just have to disagree with you on that.

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.

Wrong verb. Adding Mueller to the list, not trading him out.

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.”

The DoJ memo, hardly an official policy. But again, Mueller could have been more forthcoming and specific and still kept with the decision he could not discuss what was and wasn't criminal. He could have quoted Nixon, "If the President does it it's not illegal." [that's a joke]

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.

About the highlighted, do I give a ****? They were doing all the same **** anyway.

Exactly what are claiming he hid?

He did not have to be as noncommittal as he was. 'I'm not saying he did or didn't'. Better if he laid out the case for Dump's part and left it there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know if rehashing Mueller's every move is the most interesting thing to be done here. I'm just glad that the good work he did (and there was quite a bit) is now coming back into relevance. My opinion back when was that this would mean something someday, and here we are.

We can't go back, which is just as well, because idiots were in charge. We can go forward, and possibly make some of them pay for their crimes.

I hope the report does get brought up with a more honest summary than Barr's. One should not forget, Russia is meddling on Dump's behalf yet again.

 

[eerok]

I hope the report does get brought up with a more honest summary than Barr's. One should not forget, Russia is meddling on Dump's behalf yet again.

I don't think that either Trump or Russia will get a pass from the Biden administration ... and I'm looking forward to how it all plays out.

 

[Belz...]

Not the goal. The goal of Mueller's should have been an address to the public: "This is what I found".

Why should his goal have been something else than what he was hired for?

 

[Belz...]

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.

To whom? Those of us who already understand the full weight of said failure, or those who are determined to ignore that? Who's on the fence on this?

 

[eerok]

Why should his goal have been something else than what he was hired for?

Mueller did what he was hired for, and Trump's corrupt administration covered it up. This was always certain to come back to life, and that's where we are now. There's really no point in complaining about Mueller at this point. It's Barr who swept the report under the rug.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

From what I'm reading, I don't think anything short of calling Barr a "lying liar" would have been good enough for some on here. Apparently, those are the only words Americans can understand.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

From what I'm reading, I don't think anything short of calling Barr a "lying liar" would have been good enough for some on here. Apparently, those are the only words Americans can understand.

If so, then he should have said that. He is responsible for making himself understood or at least understandable. Especially so if he's talking to people that are resisting understanding.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From what I'm reading, I don't think anything short of calling Barr a "lying liar" would have been good enough for some on here. Apparently, those are the only words Americans can understand.

The polite way to say it would have been, his summary was simply not accurate.

 

[Stacyhs]

He could have recommended an indictment or even stated a crime was committed. He wouldn’t even go that far. Particularly in his disastrous congressional testimony where at times he simply refused to explain himself.

No, he could not have recommended an indictment. What part of the following are you not understanding?

“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.”

And at times he seemed cognizant of political climates, such as giving up on securing an interview with DJT or refusing to subpoena despite the written answers containing lies,or why we still don’t know what the Trump tower meeting was about, yet wanted to stay apolitical as possible at other times, including a congressional interview where he would say almost nothing beyond what was in his incomplete report.

That "he gave up" on getting an interview with Trump is an assumption based on your own bias, not one based on evidence. Going on past experience of Trump interviews, I'd say Mueller likely knew he wasn't going to get anything more out of Trump than a lot of "I don't recalls". Frankly, if I had to judge Mueller's decision on what you think you know Mueller knew and what Mueller actually knew, I'll go with Mueller's decision.

He also didn’t pursue anything dealing with Trumps taxes and finances which is ridiculous and a major component of why Trump did what he did.

Why is it ridiculous? What do they have to do with the Russia election interference or Trump's obstruction of the investigation into that?

Anyway the OLC memo said he couldn’t charge him with a crime. He chose to take it beyond that and refused to say that a crime had been committed, despite having all the evidence needed to do that. And so be released an incomplete report that failed to reach any sort of conclusion and then refused to clarify any of it when asked. That was his biggest failure in my opinion.

Mueller clearly explained in his report why he would not say Trump had committed a crime and his reasoning is sound:

Mueller then notes that defendants have a constitutional right to clear their name of criminal accusations through a speedy trial. By contrast, if prosecutors were allowed to impugn their reputations without charging them with crimes, it would be unfair.
“The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case,” he wrote. “A prosecutor’s judgement that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.”

Because Mueller’s team can’t indict Trump, it also can’t give him the opportunity for a speedy trial to clear his name, Mueller reasoned. He decided that his team would therefore not make an announcement that Trump had committed a crime — such as obstructing justice — despite the facts it uncover.
“The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice,” he wrote.

Mueller also ruled out another option, which would be to obtain a sealed indictment against presidents that would not become public until after they leave office would not work because they could be leaked.
“‘It would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s secrecy,’ and if an indictment became public, ‘[t]he stigma and opprobrium’ could imperil the President’s ability to govern,'” he wrote, quoting the Office of Legal Counsel memo.

https://time.com/5573289/robert-mueller-trump-obstruction-charges/

 

[Stacyhs]

The polite way to say it would have been, his summary was simply not accurate.

Um.....he did. What have I been posting all this time? Gone With the Freaking Wind?

 

[Stacyhs]

If so, then he should have said that. He is responsible for making himself understood or at least understandable. Especially so if he's talking to people that are resisting understanding.

"If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."


If that is not 'understandable' then I suggest a refresher course in the English language.

This has become ridiculous. It's to the point where you are so invested in blaming Mueller that you are resorting to claiming that nothing short of actually calling Barr a "lying liar" is "understandable" that Barr was not telling the truth when he said Trump was exonerated by the report. When it get to this level of absurdity, it's like talking to an anti-vaxxer or Trumper who insists his hero never lies: facts and logic aren't going to matter.

See ya later, buh-bye.

 

[dirtywick]

No, he could not have recommended an indictment. What part of the following are you not understanding?

“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.”

Nowhere does it say that he cannot recommend an indictment. It says he cannot do it directly. He can recommend another party, such as Congress, pursue action against him.

That "he gave up" on getting an interview with Trump is an assumption based on your own bias, not one based on evidence. Going on past experience of Trump interviews, I'd say Mueller likely knew he wasn't going to get anything more out of Trump than a lot of "I don't recalls". Frankly, if I had to judge Mueller's decision on what you think you know Mueller knew and what Mueller actually knew, I'll go with Mueller's decision.

This is as much assumption as mine, however mine has supporting evidence. It is known that he was pursuing an interview, then settled for written answers. And the written answers were dishonest. I think it’s fair to say he gave up on getting an interview.

Why is it ridiculous? What do they have to do with the Russia election interference or Trump's obstruction of the investigation into that?

Well, potentially a lot. To what degree he was involved with Russian intelligence is a core part of the investigation. He was involved financially with Russians in the summer of the campaign and lied about it for one. To what extent, who knows, they didn’t investigate that.

Mueller clearly explained in his report why he would not say Trump had committed a crime and his reasoning is sound:

https://time.com/5573289/robert-mueller-trump-obstruction-charges/

I think his reasoning is bad lol it’s what we are discussing. Him saying he did a good job isn’t particularly convincing. In my opinion, ending an incomplete investigation and being unable to make a conclusion, citing the reason why it’s incomplete is that it was obstructed a dozen times, and then refusing to say that very obstruction was a crime is a fail. Im not going to celebrate him for that.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

"
This has become ridiculous. It's to the point where you are so invested in blaming Mueller that you are resorting to claiming that nothing short of actually calling Barr a "lying liar" is "understandable" that Barr was not telling the truth when he said Trump was exonerated by the report. When it get to this level of absurdity, it's like talking to an anti-vaxxer or Trumper who insists his hero never lies: facts and logic aren't going to matter.

See ya later, buh-bye.

I've said two things today in this thread. One was that Mueller should have said something more convincingly and another was pointing out it was beyond the facts for him to indict Trump. I don't see how that makes me invested in blaming Mueller.

 

[Belz...]

If so, then he should have said that. He is responsible for making himself understood or at least understandable.

He did say that. It's not his fault if people are dense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Um.....he did. What have I been posting all this time? Gone With the Freaking Wind?

That is not what Mueller said. He said

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller added. “We did not however make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

How is that not wishy-washy?

Forbes 2019

Mueller said “it would be unfair” to accuse someone with a crime who can’t defend himself at trial, emphasizing that he was following a Justice Department policy against indicting sitting presidents.

Mueller could have said what he did find. If he thought Dump needed to be able to rebut the 'circumstantial evidence' he certainly could have.

Mueller said “it would be unfair” to accuse someone with a crime who can’t defend himself at trial, emphasizing that he was following a Justice Department policy against indicting sitting presidents.

Mueller said he didn't want to be unfair to Dump. How about not wanting to be unfair to democracy and the American public? Was he hired by Dump to represent Dump like Barr?

As calls for Mueller to testify before Congress grow, Mueller said he wouldn’t testify to anything beyond what’s included in the report. “The report is my testimony,” he said.

Fine, so has the report yet been before Congress in a public hearing? Nope.

Maybe now though. Judge orders release of secret DOJ memo used to clear Trump of obstruction

This judge had little trouble calling Barr a liar using polite terms.

What they're saying: "[N]ot only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege," reads Jackson's opinion.

Not sure why the current DoJ would be defending keeping the memo secret nor do I see anyway it is attorney client privilege when Barr was not supposed to be Barr's attorney. Barr couldn't even claim executive privilege.

 

[Segnosaur]

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".

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.

Whether it was part of his "official job description" is irrelevant...

He should have seen that his work was being misrepresented, and that there was significant corruption and acted, not because "that's what my job says I should do" but because it was the right thing to do.

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.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where "sound bites" have more influence than they should. And despite YOU thinking "does not exonerate" is clear enough, not everyone will think so.

Even people who might otherwise be "too dense" to pick up on the "does not exonerate" might still have been willing to pay attention to a more clear "Trump is lying" message.

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.

Trump was corrupt. Barr was corrupt. Congressional republicans were corrupt. They do deserve the lions share of the blame.

But if you can do something good, with no cost to yourself, society would expect that you would, you know, do that good thing.

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
- John Stewart Mill

 

[Segnosaur]

No, he could not have recommended an indictment. What part of the following are you not understanding?

“Under long-standing department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.

Yes, we're probably all familiar with that particular ruling.

But there was nothing preventing him from saying something like "Based on my experience, If he were not president, and I were prosecutor, I would feel comfortable engaging in criminal prosecution".

You see? He wouldn't have to say "indict him now". He wouldn't even have to say "Trump is guilty". Only that the case is strong enough that prosecution would be warranted if his status was different..