What angers me about the Mueller report is the contradictions.

[shockey80]

Mueller could have said Trump is not guilty. There is no rule against that. He could not say Trump is guilty because of a rule ( not a law) that says you cannot indict a president. It would not be fair to Trump to say he committed a crime because he could not defend himself in court. Complete bullshit. So you can say a president is not guilty, but you cannot say he is guilty. There is something wrong with that picture

Mueller basically said this, I cannot say Trump is guilty and I cannot say he is not guilty. Then Mueller wrote a report with undeniable evidence that proved Trump is guilty. WTF!

Like everyone else I am waiting for Mueller to come out of hiding and answer a lot of questions. His silence has made things a lot worse.

[SHRED]

1. I hope he testifies

I'm having my doubts if he ever will.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. He couldn't say guilty or not guilty because he was acting as a prosecutor, not a jury.

The only conclusion a prosecutor can reach is whether he has enough evidence to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty. Having insufficient evidence to proceed to trial is not the same as concluding the person is not guilty - only a trial can reach that result. And even in a trial, a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the defendant is innocent; it means only that the prosecution did not prove all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mueller didn't conclude Trump was either guilty or not guilty because that was not what he was tasked to do. In his capacity as prosecutor he laid out evidence of guilt - not a conclusion, just evidence - that could be followed up in a criminal proceeding once Trump is out of office, and a jury could then decide whether Trump was guilty, or by the House if they decided to impeach, and the Senate could decide whether he should be removed from office.

[unblock]

4. correct as to the general role as prosecutor. what we don't know in this particular case,

are questions such as:

- was it only due to doj policy about sitting presidents that mueller decided not to indict?
- was it due to pressure from barr and/or donald fraud and/or others in the white house that mueller decided not to indict?
- same two questions as to mueller not recommending impeachment but leaving it up to congress.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Those are fair questions.

I hope Mueller does testify (and I believe he will once he is no longer employed by the DoJ). But I've read the whole report, including the footnotes, and Mueller stated clearly that he declined to indict Trump because of the OSC memos, which was not an improper or unlawful decision. He was not legally bound by the OSC memos because they aren't laws or DoJ rules, but if he had not followed their guidance he certainly would have been accused of being biased against Trump and a member of the Deep State (which they are accusing him of anyhow, damned if you do, damned if you don't). He also made it very clear that his evidentiary findings were there for consideration by future prosecutors or Congress.

I do agree that he should be questioned about whether Barr or anyone else tried to pressure him in any way.

[unblock]

7. he was actually in a deeper quandry about the decision to indict.

if he truly believed that donald fraud should be indicted and stand trial, he likely should prefer it happen at a time when donald fraud is no longer wields such statutory and political powers over the indictment intself.

face it, if mueller had chosen to indict him, and even if the supreme court backed the notion that a sitting president can be indicted, donald fraud is still in a position to spoil the case against himself.

we may end up figuring that mueller was a genius to avoid giving donald fraud a double jeopardy out.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Good point. If Trump were to be indicted by a grand jury while still in office,

you can bet Barr would see to it that any further proceedings would go nowhere fast. An indictment doesn't trigger double jeopardy; you need a final verdict for that, so even if Barr got the indictments quashed a new grand jury could be convened later to consider the same evidence. But I think Barr would even prevent a grand jury from hearing any evidence against Trump.

[unblock]

10. Barr could easily engineer a final verdict in Donald fraud's favor

Or taint the case so badly it can't be tried again.

But Donald is already inoculating himself against a post-presidency prosecuting by threatening to put his political opponents on trial. By doing this is a blatantly political fashion, of a d when *he* is indicted under the next (democratic) administration, the right will similarly say, hey, you said that kind of thing was unfair partisan politics....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. As a practical matter, or a political one, I don't think Trump will ever be indicted,

although the Manhattan DA's office seems to be coming after his businesses (and maybe his spawn). Ford pardoned Nixon because he believed that having a former president in the dock would be disruptive. I disagreed at the time; I wanted Nixon's nasty ass in the dock, and Ford probably lost the '76 election because of that pardon. A Dem president wouldn't pardon Trump, but I could see a situation where he could take an Alford plea, forfeit some money (if he actually has any) and slither away to Merde-a-Loco.

[unblock]

14. I agree he'll never go to prison

He has the wealth and privilege to delay things for a long time, and by then he can claim any prison would be a death sentence for health reasons if nothing else.

That's if he doesn't take a deal as you suggest, and even that is if he's ever actually indicted, something his privilege would seem to protect him from.

Really disgusting, really corrupt. Republicans learned some very evil lessons from watergate and ford's pardon.

[Qutzupalotl]

21. Mueller does cite the OLC opinion in the intro to Volume II.

It appears that policy was the main limiting factor in his declination to indict, along with fairness concerns raised by a public accusation without the possibility of a trial to clear the name of the defendant.

Regarding pressure from Barr, there were rumors on Twitter that Mueller wanted to indict but Barr did not. The report coming as it does before all investigations and prosecutions are completed suggests an artificially accelerated timeline. I think Barr shut Mueller down prematurely.

Mueller is of the opinion that the constitutionally sanctioned remedy (impeachment) is preferable to an indictment from DOJ, which would violate existing precedent.

[unblock]

23. I agree on the accelerated timeline

It's seems like there should have been other targets, such as his kids, and maybe others as well.

The real obstruction may not be in him not being indicted, but in him shutting it down before his kids could get indicted.

[Qutzupalotl]

24. To clarify, only Mueller is shutting down,

and even that evidently not yet, as he is still on the DOJ payroll, doing (???).

The counterintelligence probe is continuing robustly. The Stone angle has the possibility of proving Trump conspired with Russia via Wikileaks, but that trial is not until November.

There are also state AGs and USAs looking at the Trump Organization, Foundation and the transition team. I don’t think the kids are going to avoid charges, and those will not be pardonable.

[unblock]

25. Understood.

But will it happen in time to matter politically?

[Qutzupalotl]

28. I think it could.

I’ve heard estimates of 2-3 weeks for the Stone trial. That would mean by December we’ll likely have an answer on collusion that contradicts Barr’s spin, proven in court, giving plenty of time to inform voters before the election or even for Congress to impeach.

[emmaverybo]

30. Good explanation. Unfortunately, some do not want to understand, so Mueller is new bad guy.

[dem4decades]

3. Bobby Three Sticks - all duds

[Vidal]

6. It's up to the House

Mueller knows that an impeachment inquiry in the House is the proper next step.

And it will happen eventually.

And the truth will come out.

Let Trump be convicted in the court of public opinion, and go down to defeat in 2020.

[Nuggets]

26. Sorry but

if legal redress is available for a party that has suffered some injury, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no redress at all.


a.k.a Justice delayed is justice denied

[Hoyt]

9. He definitely could have been less ambiguous about his findings.

Mueller Beating around the bush allowed trumpsters to say, “No collusion/conspiracy/cooperation, no obstruction.”

Mueller is just another Company Man, like Fitzgerald.

[maxsolomon]

12. You've got this part wrong:

"Mueller basically said this, I cannot say Trump is guilty and I cannot say he is not guilty."

No, Mueller could have said Trump is not guilty. The report says that it COULD clear President Asshole, but that it is not going to. The point is finessed.

The upshot is: he's Impeachable as fuck, here's all the crimes, but we can't indict him because DOJ policy, Congress has to Impeach. Every Dem member of Congress (and Justin Amash) got the message, including Pelosi and senior leadership.

[ehrnst]

17. He sent the message that Congress needs to find DT guilty

and there are investigations to do that going on right now, including talks to get Mueller to testify before congress.

[LisaM]

13. Mueller is a Republican.

I don't trust Republicans.

[StevieM]

19. That is a fair point to consider, but I don't see the reason to condemn him like I did with Comey.

James Comey is an example of a Republican who did not know how to stop himself from screwing over the Democratic candidate for president.

[LisaM]

20. Well, these so-called moral Republicans never seem to come through.

Susan Collins pretends to be pro-choice, she voted for Kavanaugh. McCain was supposed to be so old-school; he let the country down time and again, despite one near death-bed vote on healthcare.

What makes a person a Republican to begin with? Studies say there's a whole different brain pattern. If Mueller self-identifies as a Republican, he must have some underlying reason for it, and for me, anyway, he's going to have to earn my trust. I won't believe a Republican can or will behave decently until I see it.

[Nuggets]

27. [phone] nt

[pdsimdars]

15. And, in light of what is actually IN the report, I'm waiting for the democrats to do their duty

[ehrnst]

18. And what is it that they are not doing that is their duty?

Multiple investigations and subpoenas - check.

In talks with Mueller to testify - check.

Working on legislation - check.

[Nuggets]

29. Yep

I’m putting my faith in Schiff et al.

[H2O Man]

16. If Mr. Mueller had

said that Trump was guilty, he would have violated DOJ rules, and his report would never have seen the light of day.

[EffieBlack]

22. Barr's tactics worked ...

That’s exactly the reaction Barr intended to provoke...

[brush]

31. I'm with you. I hope he finally testifies. I don't think he can as long as...

he still works for fucking Barr, as Barr won't ok it. Maybe Mueller will just up and quit. I don't know if he has a contract and how long it lasts.