Mueller Report Imminent

[37L1]

Your question was in no way an answer to mine.
I'll gladly answer your question as soon as you answer mine.

You just quoted yourself.

Did you mean to do that?

 

[luthervol]

Inference isn't your strong suit is it?

My question was an inferred answer to yours.

Why isn't Ms. Nancy moving forward with impeachment then? You know that the House can determine what an impeachable offense is, right?

Your question was in no way an answer to mine.
I'll gladly answer your question as soon as you answer mine.

 

[luthervol]

You just quoted yourself.

Did you mean to do that?

nope

 

[Franklin Pierce]

House Dems Excited About Mueller Testimony, But Not Half As Excited As Republicans Are

Democrats are delighted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will testify under subpoena on July 17th before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees. Don’t they realize that this move has the potential to backfire? Spectacularly?
There are so many reasons why this may not end well for Democrats or for Mueller.


For starters, let’s go back to Mueller’s nine minute press conference last month. Putting aside the investigation and the report itself for a moment, Mueller appeared to be completely overwhelmed. At the time, I wrote, “If you watch Mueller’s demeanor, especially when he first steps up to the podium, he appears extremely ill at ease. It’s hard to imagine that such a powerful man would be quite so nervous, but he appeared petrified. And all he had to do was read something. He gave the impression that if he had to answer a serious question, he would explode.

Historian and political commentator Mark Levin’s observation was that Mueller appeared feeble. He said, “this is not a man who would do well under seven, eight, nine hours of questioning, with the Republicans honing in on so many issues.”

Next, Mueller does not want to answer questions. He is vulnerable and has a lot to hide.

He is used to operating behind the scenes. He issues orders and, until now, has answered to no one. Not even to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. House Republicans, particularly Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and those like him, will rip off the curtain. He will be taken completely out of his comfort zone and will be expected to answer many uncomfortable questions. Here are a few.

1. Why did you accept the Special Counsel appointment when you had such obvious (and personal) conflicts of interest? (First, Mueller was interested in returning to his old job as FBI Director. President Trump turned him down the day before Rosenstein appointed him to the Special Counsel; Next, Mueller had a close long-term relationship with James Comey, whose firing triggered the Special Counsel; Last, Mueller had been involved in a financial dispute with Trump years ago over a portion of his membership fee ($15,000) at one of Trump’s golf clubs.)

House Dems Excited About Mueller Testimony, But Not Half As Excited As Republicans Are

 

[lawgator1]

We know collusion is dead on arrival. He said as much in his report. Add to that, no charges related to collusion for any US citizen were filed.

He didn’t specifically recommend any obstruction charges. Why not? The report was his time to make the case...and he didn’t. Also, no charges related to obstruction were charged to any members of the Trump camp. Why not?

Trump is the one who obstructed.

He was not charged SIMPLY because he cannot be, in the view of the DOJ. Mueller made the mistake of thinking that people would understand the report that Trump had obstructed and that Congress would act.

Two things happened. First, Barr intercepted the report and put his spin on it before anyone had seen it. He then sat on it long enough for his false narrative to become accepted.

Second, he incorrectly assumed people would delve into the facts. He overestimated their energy to do so.

He can fix that when he testifies. That's why Trump is losing his mind. He knows Mueller can single handedly undo his manipulation of the investigation.

 

[37L1]

nope

I didn't think so.

So to be clear, I do not think Trump is guilty of a crime, if he were Ms. Nancy would go ahead with impeachment, IMHO, and she, so far, is not. Even you should now be able to grasp that inference.

However, neither of us are lawyers and it's just our opinion. Even lawyers disagree on this subject. So what? You think any of that is going to change after Mueller testifies? I don't.

 

[37L1]

Trump is the one who obstructed.

He was not charged SIMPLY because he cannot be, in the view of the DOJ. Mueller made the mistake of thinking that people would understand the report that Trump had obstructed and that Congress would act.

Two things happened. First, Barr intercepted the report and put his spin on it before anyone had seen it. He then sat on it long enough for his false narrative to become accepted.

Second, he incorrectly assumed people would delve into the facts. He overestimated their energy to do so.

He can fix that when he testifies. That's why Trump is losing his mind. He knows Mueller can single handedly undo his manipulation of the investigation.

How can you tell when Trump "is losing his mind?"

Inquiring minds want to know.

Maybe you can tell because you have obviously lost yours.

 

[DC_Vol]

Trump is the one who obstructed.

He was not charged SIMPLY because he cannot be, in the view of the DOJ. Mueller made the mistake of thinking that people would understand the report that Trump had obstructed and that Congress would act.

Two things happened. First, Barr intercepted the report and put his spin on it before anyone had seen it. He then sat on it long enough for his false narrative to become accepted.

Second, he incorrectly assumed people would delve into the facts. He overestimated their energy to do so.

He can fix that when he testifies. That's why Trump is losing his mind. He knows Mueller can single handedly undo his manipulation of the investigation.

Mueller could have said Trump committed obstruction, but he didn’t. His report was the time to say it. It’s over now except for more political posturing, braying, and shrieking by the Democrats.

Mueller had his chance at the plate and he struck out.

How many charges did he bring related to collusion? Zero.

How many charges did he bring related to obstruction? Zero.

 

[lawgator1]

How can you tell when Trump "is losing his mind?"

Inquiring minds want to know.

Maybe you can tell because you have obviously lost yours.

You have evidently not seen video of his FBN call in this morning. Watch it. Wild, maniacal accusations.

 

[luthervol]

I didn't think so.

So to be clear, I do not think Trump is guilty of a crime, if he were Ms. Nancy would go ahead with impeachment, IMHO, and she, so far, is not. Even you should now be able to grasp that inference.

However, neither of us are lawyers and it's just our opinion. Even lawyers disagree on this subject. So what? You think any of that is going to change after Mueller testifies? I don't.

So you disagree with the 1000+ attorneys. Many agree and many disagree with their conclusions, the vast majority of whom will in no way change their opinions (that's the group in which we both belong).
That's why I said Mueller's testimony is intended for no one other than the 2-5% of the people who are in the middle and will potentially change their opinion or finally form one..

 

[luthervol]

Mueller could have said Trump committed obstruction, but he didn’t. His report was the time to say it. It’s over now except for more political posturing, braying, and shrieking by the Democrats.

Mueller had his chance at the plate and he struck out.

How many charges did he bring related to collusion? Zero.

How many charges did he bring related to obstruction? Zero.

He operated under the rule that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. There was never going to be a charge leveled by Mueller, regardless of his findings.

 

[DC_Vol]

He operated under the rule that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. There was never going to be a charge leveled by Mueller, regardless of his findings.

LOL ok. Thanks for wasting everyone’s time, Bob!!

There was never going to be a charge because there was not any evidence. It was political theatre.

 

[luthervol]

LOL ok. Thanks for wasting everyone’s time, Bob!!

There was never going to be a charge because there was not any evidence. It was political theatre.

Again, we are seeing why Mueller's testimony is needed.

 

[RockyTop85]

So you disagree with the 1000+ attorneys. Many agree and many disagree with their conclusions, the vast majority of whom will in no way change their opinions (that's the group in which we both belong).
That's why I said Mueller's testimony is intended for no one other than the 2-5% of the people who are in the middle and will potentially change their opinion or finally form one..

1000+ former federal prosecutors.*

 

[DC_Vol]

Again, we are seeing why Mueller's testimony is needed.

The report is Mueller’s testimony.

 

[37L1]

So you disagree with the 1000+ attorneys. Many agree and many disagree with their conclusions, the vast majority of whom will in no way change their opinions (that's the group in which we both belong).
That's why I said Mueller's testimony is intended for no one other than the 2-5% of the people who are in the middle and will potentially change their opinion or finally form one..

Based on your depth of dislike for Trump how can you even think that there are 2-5% left for an opinion change? Or is that some WAG that you pulled out of your_____ ? Well, you know where.

 

[37L1]

1000+ former federal prosecutors.*

However, Mueller noted that there was another avenue for dealing with a sitting president who broke the law. He said that the internal Justice Department opinion barring the prosecution of a president also “says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

That “process,” which Mueller did not name, is impeachment.

Special counsel Robert Mueller: 'If we had had confidence that' President Trump 'clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

So, why hasn't Ms. Nancy proceeded based on the the Mueller Report's findings?

 

[RockyTop85]

However, Mueller noted that there was another avenue for dealing with a sitting president who broke the law. He said that the internal Justice Department opinion barring the prosecution of a president also “says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

That “process,” which Mueller did not name, is impeachment.

Special counsel Robert Mueller: 'If we had had confidence that' President Trump 'clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

So, why hasn't Ms. Nancy proceeded based on the the Mueller Report's findings?

This has been addressed on here at least 5 times by me, alone:

The standard for impeachment is not criminal or legal, it is political. The president is elected by the people. He should only be removed by the people. Presently, there is insufficient support among the people to remove the president.

 

[luthervol]

The report is Mueller’s testimony.

And 99.9% of the population has barely a clue what it contains. All his testimony will provide is increased understanding. I don't know why Trump and the right is so opposed to increased understanding.



Just kidding......I know exactly why.

 

[luthervol]

Based on your depth of dislike for Trump how can you even think that there are 2-5% left for an opinion change? Or is that some WAG that you pulled out of your_____ ? Well, you know where.

I like to view it as more of a SWAG. (scientific)
Are you of the opinion that everyone (100%) is locked into their opinion?
When people with incomplete understanding of the Mueller report findings (which is most everyone) obtain a greater understanding, will any change their opinion? If so, how many?

 

[37L1]

This has been addressed on here at least 5 times by me, alone:

The standard for impeachment is not criminal or legal, it is political. The president is elected by the people. He should only be removed by the people. Presently, there is insufficient support among the people to remove the president.

The 1000 former prosecutors has been addressed on here just as many times. That didn't stop you from doing it again. Wonder how many former prosecutors would have had the same opinion regarding Comey's claim regarding Ms. Clinton. . .

Regarding your comments as to the standard for impeachment:

So the people don't feel he is guilty of a crime or of a crime that reaches the level of impeachment. Is that right?

Did the Muell think so? Would he even dare say? Mueller certainly chickened out on this whole deal and used a bunch of BS to cast doubt about the President but did not reach a conclusion that the President committed a crime, (even though he could have) but didn't because he didn't want to because it would be "wrong" for him to accuse someone of wrongdoing who couldn't then have a fair trial and get the chance to defend himself. And yet that seems to be exactly what he did with a footnote* explanation saying it's someone else's job. BS covering for CS. He punted on third down when the goal became "too political" for him.

Either way, I thought that the House can determine what is an impeachable offense or not? Am I wrong? So far they have not.

So what you are saying essentially is that it is not about right or wrong, crime or no crime, but "politics"? No wonder we are in such a mess.

 

[37L1]

I like to view it as more of a SWAG. (scientific)
Are you of the opinion that everyone (100%) is locked into their opinion?
When people with incomplete understanding of the Mueller report findings (which is most everyone) obtain a greater understanding, will any change their opinion? If so, how many?

Not enough to make a difference. Most DGAS.

 

[luthervol]

Not enough to make a difference. Most DGAS.

The margins in swing states were tenths of a percent.
The DGASs fall in with the 95-98% who are not about to change their opinions.

 

[37L1]

The margins in swing states were tenths of a percent.
The DGASs fall in with the 95-98% who are not about to change their opinions.

Enough with your made up percentages. I'm 100% sure they are made up and 100% sure they are incorrect.

 

[Septic]

Mueller could have said Trump committed obstruction, but he didn’t. His report was the time to say it. It’s over now except for more political posturing, braying, and shrieking by the Democrats.

Mueller had his chance at the plate and he struck out.

How many charges did he bring related to collusion? Zero.

How many charges did he bring related to obstruction? Zero.

No he couldn't. He explicitly stated that he couldn't do this, it's kind of amazing that people keep trotting this out in hopes it suddenly becomes true.

Mueller said:

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that 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.