Robert Mueller, Trump's Best Friend

[The Great Zaganza]

For two years, Trump had no better defender than Robert Mueller. And he still is shielding Trump from any consequences, political or otherwise.


In his Report, and in his statement, Mueller made clear that early on he made the decision that charging Trump was not an option, and that only through Impeachment a sitting President could be removed.

The MOMENT he made that decision would have been the time to inform Congress that if they are considering Impeachment, they would have to do their own inquiry.
By taking over the legal aspects of the Russian interference, Mueller made it next to impossible for others to do their own investigation without interfering in his. That would have been ok if he had provided his work product as it developed, so that Congress could decide to join in or do their own thing at any point.
But after blocking the investigation for two years he is coming out with a "Yeah, I was never going to do what everyone expected me to do" statement he is de facto robbing Congress of its ability to do an Impeachment in a timely manner to the offense.
What is the point of the Power of Impeachment when it takes more than four years to do it methodically instead of for purely political reasons?

Mueller is kidding himself if he thinks he did the right thing.

Screw you, Bob Mueller.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You realise that Mueller's report is pretty quick. Starr's took 4 years!

As to your claims, they are bogus. It was well known that the DoJ could not indict a sitting President, it has been known that this was the likely case since Nixon.

Mueller did exactly what he could do and what the office allowed him to do, to gather the evidence, determine if the evidence cleared the President, then pass it all to Congress with the advice that they use it as evidence to progress it all further.

This is exactly the same thing that the Starr Report did.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You realise that Mueller's report is pretty quick. Starr's took 4 years!

As to your claims, they are bogus. It was well known that the DoJ could not indict a sitting President, it has been known that this was the likely case since Nixon.

Mueller did exactly what he could do and what the office allowed him to do, to gather the evidence, determine if the evidence cleared the President, then pass it all to Congress with the advice that they use it as evidence to progress it all further.

This is exactly the same thing that the Starr Report did.

No.
Starr handed Congress a 'Roadmap' to Impeachment, and publicly supported his work product.
At the very, very least, Mueller should have let the Grand Jury decide to hand over their material to Congress.

Mueller thinks he brought the office of Special Council back to where it belonged.
But in fact, he has made it obsolete.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The report is fine. The problem is that the AG is a Trump installed defender.

 

[Cavemonster]

No.
Starr handed Congress a 'Roadmap' to Impeachment, and publicly supported his work product.
At the very, very least, Mueller should have let the Grand Jury decide to hand over their material to Congress.

Mueller thinks he brought the office of Special Council back to where it belonged.
But in fact, he has made it obsolete.

Starr was an independent counsel Mueller was a special counsel working within the confines of the DOJ. The differences between their communications are not all due to the decisions the two men made. They had different levels of freedom to act and communicate due to the difference in those two roles.

 

[applecorped]

Death to all who oppose Dems

 

[Belz...]

Mueller is kidding himself if he thinks he did the right thing.

Screw you, Bob Mueller.

Mueller did the job he was tasked with. Seemed to do a fine job, to me, despite the roadblocks.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Death to all who oppose Dems

A couple of centuries of liberal democratic traditions with their checks and balances are being **** on and torn up but its all good if you get to trigger some Dems.

 

[kookbreaker]

Death to all who oppose Dems

Beep boop.

 

[Minoosh]

What I'm not at all sure on is why everyone seemed to agree that the Justice Department guideline, policy, whatever of not indicting a sitting president has the force of established judicial precedent when basically it's an opinion, and one that will tend to protect the president because he can hire or fire the AG, so there might be a bit of a conflict there.

I'm not sure of the difference between Starr and Mueller's remit but I wasn't aware there was a key distinction - independent counsel vs. special counsel under the auspices of the AG's office. How did that come about?

Oddly maybe I kind of come out on Trump's side on this - he can push the needle toward obstruction of justice but really, the AG is his appointee; he has at least de facto power to give the AG orders and probably de juris as well, although I'm not clear on the underlying constitutional clause or interpretation. Of course if it's to stop an investigation one can argue that is a criminal act, but essentially it sounds as if the president is insulated from actual federal charges while in office. IOW, he is above federal law. At least that is Mueller's understanding and I believe he is sincere in that regard.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.

 

[ahhell]

What I'm not at all sure on is why everyone seemed to agree that the Justice Department guideline, policy, whatever of not indicting a sitting president has the force of established judicial precedent when basically it's an opinion, and one that will tend to protect the president because he can hire or fire the AG, so there might be a bit of a conflict there.

Not everyone agrees but it has been the Justice Departments policy for 40+ years, so absent a federal prosecutor willing to take a case to the supreme court despite having been fired, practically the issue is settled.

I'm not sure of the difference between Starr and Mueller's remit but I wasn't aware there was a key distinction - independent counsel vs. special counsel under the auspices of the AG's office. How did that come about?

From what I gather, after the the Starr report the legislation that created the independent council was allowed to expire. The key difference being that the Independent Council was independent and could bring charges independent from the Justice department. As I understand it.

Oddly maybe I kind of come out on Trump's side on this - he can push the needle toward obstruction of justice but really, the AG is his appointee; he has at least de facto power to give the AG orders and probably de juris as well, although I'm not clear on the underlying constitutional clause or interpretation. Of course if it's to stop an investigation one can argue that is a criminal act, but essentially it sounds as if the president is insulated from actual federal charges while in office. IOW, he is above federal law. At least that is Mueller's understanding and I believe he is sincere in that regard.

I think this is accurate. As to whether the President can be indicted by the justice department, that seems to be debated sincerely among legal scholars and there appears to be folks of both left and right opinions on either side of that debate. I think it was Gorsuch(maybe kavanaugh) that argued previously in some op ed or speech that congress should pass a law suspending the statute of limitations for the POTUS on account of this in order to clarify that ultimately presidents aren't above the law.

 

[theprestige]

Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.

It's not actually Congress's job to impeach every arguably impeachable offense.

Impeachment is an option they have, which they may choose if and when they see fit. Most of Congress's job, in fact, consists of duties which they can fulfill just as much by omission as by commission. You can elect someone with the hope or expectation that they will impeach. You can even vote them out if they don't. But that's about it.

As far as I can tell, US legislators don't actually have a "job" per se. They have a role, and a bunch of optional duties. They don't have to show up for votes. They don't have to sponsor bills or sit on committees. They don't have to do anything, really, besides get elected and draw a paycheck.

Your Representative is maybe not doing the job you want them to do, of urging impeachment, but impeaching the president isn't actually a job they have to do or are supposed to be doing. It's an optional activity they can legitimately opt out of.

 

[Segnosaur]

Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.

True, its not Mueller's fault that the republicans have the majority in the senate. And its also not his fault that they are a bunch of unprincipled scumbags.

But, he should have recognized the political landscape at the time (that the Senate would never convict Trump regardless of the evidence that was provided) and written his report appropriately.

The first line in the report should have been "Trump is guilty". The last line should have been "He's still guilty". Each page should have a big watermark that says "guilty as hell". Granted, the senate will still never vote to remove him from office, but at least people will have a clearer idea of where they really stand on "law and order". By not giving a simple, definitive statement on his guilt, he is giving cover to Trump and his supporters, to claim "See? The report never said I was guilty, so I must be innocent!".

 

[Segnosaur]

It's not actually Congress's job to impeach every arguably impeachable offense.

Impeachment is an option they have, which they may choose if and when they see fit. Most of Congress's job, in fact, consists of duties which they can fulfill just as much by omission as by commission. You can elect someone with the hope or expectation that they will impeach. You can even vote them out if they don't. But that's about it.

Are you trying to bob the thread?

 

[theprestige]

Are you trying to bob the thread?

Absolutely not, and I hope you don't take it that way.

I'm trying to explain that "impeach on the advice of DOJ special counsel" is not actually a required duty of Congress. It is an option they have. Dismissing that option with little or no consideration is just as much doing the job as taking that option would be.

"Not doing their job" in this context means simply, "not doing what Beelzebuddy wants".

Beelzebuddy seems to be trying to set up something like, "special counsel has laid out the case for impeachment, and now Congress has to impeach".

I disagree with that. I think that special counsel has laid out the case for impeachment, and now Congress doesn't have to do anything.

 

[dudalb]

Mueller did the job he was tasked with. Seemed to do a fine job, to me, despite the roadblocks.

Exactly. To prosecute or not to prosecute was never Mueller's call.

 

[dudalb]

Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.

This.
If Mueller is a friend of Trump,then Donnie does not need any enemies.
I think people are angry and are aiming their fire on the wrong people.
They also have a mistaken idea of what Mueller was impowered to do.

 

[Stacyhs]

Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.

I agree.

 

[dudalb]

True, its not Mueller's fault that the republicans have the majority in the senate. And its also not his fault that they are a bunch of unprincipled scumbags.

But, he should have recognized the political landscape at the time (that the Senate would never convict Trump regardless of the evidence that was provided) and written his report appropriately.

The first line in the report should have been "Trump is guilty". The last line should have been "He's still guilty". Each page should have a big watermark that says "guilty as hell". Granted, the senate will still never vote to remove him from office, but at least people will have a clearer idea of where they really stand on "law and order". By not giving a simple, definitive statement on his guilt, he is giving cover to Trump and his supporters, to claim "See? The report never said I was guilty, so I must be innocent!".

That was not the job Mueller was empowered to do. His job was to present the facts in a report, not decide on Trump's innocence or guilty. You just don't understand how the system works.