Mueller Investigation pt 7

[The Great Zaganza]

He didn't wash his hands of it, he gave a comprehensive report on the affair.

... and then wanted to be never asked about it again

But as a former Prosecutor and Director of the FBI, he should aim beyond the bare minimum of telling his superior about a problem that he himself identified as of National Security, i.e. election interference.

Continued from here. You can quote or reply to any (on topic) posts from that thread here.

Posted By: kmortis

 

[PhantomWolf]

... and then wanted to be never asked about it again

Because he gave a comprehensive report that answered all the questions and the only response he can give is, "It's in the report."

But as a former Prosecutor and Director of the FBI, he should aim beyond the bare minimum of telling his superior about a problem that he himself identified as of National Security, i.e. election interference.

He's not acting as a former Prosecutor and Director of the FBI, he's acting as a Special Counsel, and as such he is bound by the laws that say he must give his report to the USAG, and anything else has to be done with consideration to "the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law."

This is the thing, he isn't bound to your expectations, but to what he was legally required and then able to do. He doesn't have the ability to go around talking about it even if he wanted to because of the legal issues in that when speaking about the Report and investigation he is representing the DoJ and is bound by their rules.

Just because you expect something doesn't make it correct for him to do, or even legal. The issue is your expectations, not his actions.

 

[jadebox]

What else is he supposed to do? If he had anything else to say, he would have put it in the report. The report is his testimony and that's all anyone can compel him to give.

What he is supposed to do is to answer the questions. We don't know that anything else he would need to say would have been in the report. That's one reason to call him to testify.

As a prosecutor, I don't think Mueller would have let a suspect or witness decide that they were only going to give answers that they would read from a specific book.

 

[smartcooky]

No, I brought this up while I was watching the testimony live - this is how people interpreted what he said, but I think the more accurate interpretation of what he said was that a sitting president could be prosecuted for crimes committed during the presidency once they had left office.

There was quite lengthy conversation about it in this thread at the time, if you want to go back and look.

I saw that, I still disagree

NADLER: Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER: Well, I would say you could -- the statement would be to -- that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president -- excuse me -- cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.

NADLER: So you could not state that because of the OLC opinion, if that would have been your conclusion.

MUELLER: OLC opinion was some guide, yes.

NADLER: But under DOJ -- under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?

MUELLER: True.​

"the president", NOT, "a sitting president"

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's not just my expectations, Mueller himself has expressed his dismay at the level of Election Interference past and ongoing.
But it doesn't look like he is going to do something about it beyond kicking it up the Chain, where he knows nothing will be done about it as a matter of policy.

 

[Belz...]

It's not just my expectations, Mueller himself has expressed his dismay at the level of Election Interference past and ongoing.
But it doesn't look like he is going to do something about it beyond kicking it up the Chain, where he knows nothing will be done about it as a matter of policy.

What would you have him do?

 

[PhantomWolf]

What he is supposed to do is to answer the questions.

He did answer the questions. You just don't like the answers

We don't know that anything else he would need to say would have been in the report. That's one reason to call him to testify.

He stated multiple times that everything he had to say on the matter was in the report and that it should be considered his testimony. What is it you don't get about that?

As a prosecutor, I don't think Mueller would have let a suspect or witness decide that they were only going to give answers that they would read from a specific book.

What exactly do you think he could have done about if a witness had referred back to a document in evidence as his testimony? Do you think that Prosecutors have some sort of magical power that make people say the things they want them too?

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's not just my expectations, Mueller himself has expressed his dismay at the level of Election Interference past and ongoing.
But it doesn't look like he is going to do something about it beyond kicking it up the Chain, where he knows nothing will be done about it as a matter of policy.

And what should he do? He's detailed the issue and sounded the alarm, he told the congressional hearing what the danger is. Should he put on his super tights and single handedly beat Moscow Mitch into submission until he is willing to let the legislation go to the floor for a vote?

This is the thing, you are creating expectations for him out of thin air and then lambasting him for failing to achieve those expectations. It's unfair and unskeptical.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't think it's unfair or unskeptical - the job of an investigator isn't done once and for all when he hands in his report; he also has to be willing to assist investigations resulting from his work - something that required a subpoena for Mueller to do.
In all fairness, Mueller is doing less than the bare minimum.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I saw that, I still disagree

NADLER: Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER: Well, I would say you could -- the statement would be to -- that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president -- excuse me -- cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.

NADLER: So you could not state that because of the OLC opinion, if that would have been your conclusion.

MUELLER: OLC opinion was some guide, yes.

NADLER: But under DOJ -- under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?

MUELLER: True.​

"the president", NOT, "a sitting president"

Yes, but it still doesn't imply what you're inferring from it. It's like being asked the question "could the president take a trip to England after he leaves office?" The answer can be "yes" without implying that he has the motivation to. Here I believe Mueller was saying that it would be within DOJ guidelines for the president to be prosecuted for obstruction of justice once he's left office, not giving a concession that those are crimes that he has committed. In other words, I think there's an implied "if he is found to have committed such crimes" in Mueller's "true".

This is borne out by the fact that several times during the testimony he said that he never reached a conclusion as to whether or not Trump had committed obstruction of justice - that he specifically declined to reach a conclusion about that. I think it's a mistake to take this one interpretation of this one statement in isolation and ignore everything else that he has ever said on the matter, including during the same testimony. Including, in fact, in the portion of the testimony that you posted.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

My core problem with Mueller is that he pretends to be non-political when clearly he is. I wouldn't mind so much if he didn't act like he had no choice but to avoid all litigation against the White House or Trump Campaign.

 

[Belz...]

And what should he do? He's detailed the issue and sounded the alarm, he told the congressional hearing what the danger is. Should he put on his super tights and single handedly beat Moscow Mitch into submission until he is willing to let the legislation go to the floor for a vote?

I'd pay to see that.

My core problem with Mueller is that he pretends to be non-political when clearly he is.

Sorry, how is he political?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't think it's unfair or unskeptical - the job of an investigator isn't done once and for all when he hands in his report; he also has to be willing to assist investigations resulting from his work - something that required a subpoena for Mueller to do.
In all fairness, Mueller is doing less than the bare minimum.

You are just plain wrong here. A Special Counsel's job is over once the Report is handed over to the USAG. It's not the SC's job to prosecute or help with prosecution. That is the DoJ's job. You need to read up on the requirements and rules for the Special Counsel instead of making stuff up out of thin air.

 

[wareyin]

In this case, it did.

In this case the failure is yours. It's quite clear.

In this case, there are only 2-3 of you claiming it is clear, which is a minority among those of us on this forum that agree Trump committed perjury. We even have a lawyer (iirc?) being lectured by Squeegee (who doesn't practice law iirc) about how to parse this "clear" testimony by Mueller. Face it, Mueller was not anywhere near as clear as he could have been.

 

[Belz...]

In this case, there are only 2-3 of you claiming it is clear, which is a minority among those of us on this forum that agree Trump committed perjury.

Do I need to remind you that appeal to popularity is a fallacy?

Face it, Mueller was not anywhere near as clear as he could have been.

Sure, he could've shouted TRUMP IS A LIAR AND A TRAITOR while writing it on a chalkboard, but that's only for the benefit of people who can't reat the report and understand what it says.

 

[wareyin]

Do I need to remind you that appeal to popularity is a fallacy?

Not when we are discussing how clear a description or communication is.

 

[PhantomWolf]

In this case, there are only 2-3 of you claiming it is clear, which is a minority among those of us on this forum that agree Trump committed perjury. We even have a lawyer (iirc?) being lectured by Squeegee (who doesn't practice law iirc) about how to parse this "clear" testimony by Mueller. Face it, Mueller was not anywhere near as clear as he could have been.

He was exactly as clear as he should have been, He wasn't there to make conclusions about the facts, but to deliver the facts.

The facts are that some of Trump's answers under oath were not consistent with other evidence. But that doesn't mean that he committed Perjury.

Mueller saying that Trump committed perjury would have been his making a conclusion and accusing a sitting president of a crime that could not be defended in court. It simply was never going to happen, and nor should it have happened.

 

[wareyin]

He was exactly as clear as he should have been, He wasn't there to make conclusions about the facts, but to deliver the facts.

The facts are that some of Trump's answers under oath were not consistent with other evidence. But that doesn't mean that he committed Perjury.

Mueller saying that Trump committed perjury would have been his making a conclusion and accusing a sitting president of a crime that could not be defended in court. It simply was never going to happen, and nor should it have happened.

Thank you. I'll notch you down in the "Mueller did not clearly state Trump committed perjury" column. So this leaves us with Squeegee and Belz... as the only participants who seem to think Mueller did clearly state such.

 

[Belz...]

Not when we are discussing how clear a description or communication is.

It's no less a fallacy here. Whether or not I am a minority is completely irrelevant unless we're taking a vote, which we're not, and were you in the minority you wouldn't think it relevant, either.

 

[Belz...]

Thank you. I'll notch you down in the "Mueller did not clearly state Trump committed perjury" column. So this leaves us with Squeegee and Belz... as the only participants who seem to think Mueller did clearly state such.

I never said that he stated this. I said that he was being very clear where others said he was vague, including yourself.

The discussion is whether Mueller should have said more or whether he should say that Trump committed perjury. He was very clear about exactly what the facts are. I'm pretty much exactly where PhantomWolf is.