Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

TOTAL EXONERATION!!!

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1133753691796889601

Democrats need to insert that sentence into every commercial for 2020.

[T'Chenka]

What a loser

LOL!

Underrated salt post. Your tears are delicious.

[Devout Centrist]

What a loser

LOL!

Underrated salt post. Your tears are delicious.

What? Can you explain a bit more?

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

TOTAL EXONERATION!!!

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1133753691796889601

Democrats need to insert that sentence into every commercial for 2020.

The whole point of stating it that way, is because if it were to go to court - Trump would win.  The "burden of proof" would not be met.

[Slander and/or Libel]

TOTAL EXONERATION!!!

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1133753691796889601

Democrats need to insert that sentence into every commercial for 2020.

The whole point of stating it that way, is because if it were to go to court - Trump would win.  The "burden of proof" would not be met.

That's absolutely not what it means. He said he cannot bring it to court because he can't indict the president. He also lays out in the report where 4 or 5 of the obstruction cases are basically open and shut, by establishing the obstructive act, the nexus to a proceeding, and the corrupt intent. It's as clear as can be that if it had been anybody but the president, he would have indicted him.

[Nyvin]

TOTAL EXONERATION!!!

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1133753691796889601

Democrats need to insert that sentence into every commercial for 2020.

The whole point of stating it that way, is because if it were to go to court - Trump would win.  The "burden of proof" would not be met.

They were following the office of legel counsel's precedent against indicting a sitting president.   It is not a matter of not having enough evidence.

[T'Chenka]

What a loser

LOL!

Underrated salt post. Your tears are delicious.

What? Can you explain a bit more?

I was (perhaps incorrectly?) assuming you were extremely butthurt about Mueller speaking against Trump publically, and - having no logical justification whatsoever - resorted to vague namecalling.

Maybe my mistake. Those old white dudes in your signature looked very Republican to my eye test.

[Alben Barkley]

Impeach now!

[Progressive Pessimist]

This is probably the closest thing to what I've been waiting for out of Mueller. I'll take it. It's time for House Democrats to begin the inquiry. They will not have any better excuse now. I know that Trump's removal still won't happen when it gets the Senate, but with Mueller being the most independent voice possible in this situation, they have him on their side and are more than justified to show that it is not okay for a President to commit such wrongdoing and get away with it. I don't care about the consequences anymore. I don't care how hackish the Republicans are in their attempts to stubbornly ignore the facts, invent their own reality, and protect the President; wrong is wrong.

By the way, Barr needs to be punished too.

[Badger]

TOTAL EXONERATION!!!

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1133753691796889601

Democrats need to insert that sentence into every commercial for 2020.

The whole point of stating it that way, is because if it were to go to court - Trump would win.  The "burden of proof" would not be met.

I watched his news conference and, if you do as well, you will discover that that is nearly the opposite of what Mueller said.

[Crumpets]

TOTAL EXONERATION!!!

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1133753691796889601

Democrats need to insert that sentence into every commercial for 2020.

The whole point of stating it that way, is because if it were to go to court - Trump would win.  The "burden of proof" would not be met.

I watched his news conference and, if you do as well, you will discover that that is nearly the opposite of what Mueller said.

If that's how burden of proof works, every defense attorney would just say "If I had thought my client was guilty, I would say so," and they'd win every case.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Link to full transcript of Mueller's indictment referral and resignation:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/special-counsel-robert-s-mueller-iii-makes-statement-investigation-russian-interference

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://mobile.twitter.com/aravosis/status/1134167380039544832
Our top cop is a partisan troll

Poor Mueller just can't win. If he indicted Trump he would have been called corrupt for going against DOJ policy, and when he doesn't, people like Barr engage in concern trolling and say "well, why didn't he reach a decision?" and continue to equivocate being an unindicted criminal with being exonerated.

Bullsh**t.  Reaching conclusion and indicting someone is not the same.

It has been reported that both Barr, Rosenstein and other DOJ employees WERE in fact surprised by Muller decision by kinda not making a final call or at least give his judgement. Mueller's explanation that Trump in that case would not have a fair possibility to clear his name blah blah is not THAT convincing. Pretty lame, IMHO.

And there are some legal experts that kinda agree with this. Even those who thinks it was "obvious" OOJ.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/19/mueller-report-analysis-legal-experts-226662

The Mueller report is ‘deeply confused and confusing’ about its own purpose
Rick Pildes is a professor of constitutional law at NYU Law School and a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

On the obstruction issue, the Mueller report is, to my surprise, deeply confused and confusing about the fundamental issue of what the report means to be telling us.

The obstruction analysis begins with a statement of four principles that governed the analysis. The most consequential of these will come as a stunner to most people: “We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes” (emphasis added). In other words, the report was never going to reach a judgment about whether the president had committed a crime. No matter what the facts showed, the special counsel determined at the outset, as a matter of principle, that it would be inappropriate to conclude that the president had committed a crime.

I assume most people would have thought the entire point of the special counsel investigation on obstruction was precisely to determine whether the president had committed any crimes. But the report concludes that because the president cannot be indicted while in office, it would be “unfair” in principle to conclude he had committed a crime, because unlike the ordinary criminal defendant, he would not soon have a trial in which he could clear his name. In other words: Since the president cannot be indicted while in office, he also can’t be found by the Justice Department to have committed a crime while in office.


.....

If the report had at least been clear and explicit throughout about how narrowly Mueller conceived his role, it could have expressly said things like, “We believe only Congress can decide whether a president has committed a crime while in office” or “We will only present you with our factual findings and our view of the general legal principles involved.” That would at least have left clear the limited role the special counsel believed the Department of Justice can play in evaluating potential presidential criminal liability.

But instead, the report assessed whether each event it examined could be considered obstructive. This leaves the impression that the special counsel evaluated each event and concluded that one could argue either way about whether it could be part of an obstruction crime. There is a large difference between saying (1) it is not our role, it is only for Congress to decide whether a crime has been committed, and (2) we are indeed evaluating the merits and we conclude the case could go either way.

Exactly my feelings.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I mean, the report IS clear that the president committed crimes. The only piece it omits is saying "The president committed the crime of obstruction of justice." But it holds his actions up to the legal thresholds for obstruction of justice and clearly shows that he satisfies those thresholds.

[GP270watch]

 Trump attempted to obstructed justice and I'm sure if Democrats begin Impeachment proceedings he would do so again, he can not help himself.

 

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1135623501883293696
Among the witnesses: John Dean!  It's like a time machine.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

The "investigations" run by Democrats should probably get a distinct thread? They lack the Muller's credibility and fairness...

Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) announced the next hearing, titled "Lessons from the Mueller Report: Presidential Obstruction and Other Crimes," on June 10 as a way to push forward with the committee's sprawling oversight investigation into the Trump administration amid stonewalling from the White House.

Disgusting.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The "investigations" run by Democrats should probably get a distinct thread? They lack the Muller's credibility and fairness...

IMO this thread is appropriate for hearings that are specifically about the Mueller report and its findings, since they are directly related.  The general oversight thread is probably better for hearings on other topics.

[Frodo]

Even if Mueller (as he said earlier) doesn't add to what has already been written down in his report, it is still worth it to have him testify under oath in an open hearing, effectively verbalizing the report for a television audience.  Considering it is highly doubtful most Americans (or congressmen, for that matter) have actually read the report, a different medium might be more effective in educating a broader audience.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1143685822992015363

[Hindsight was 2020]

Finally

[President Johnson]

Prediction: During or shortly after the testimony, Trump will do something incredibly stupid like bombing Iran, issue another insane tariff, break up an agreement or start deportations in order to distract from the devastating Mueller headlines.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I am so ready for this! What I was not ready for though is the media's concern trolling about this "backfiring" on the Democrats. They just always have to be in "disarray," don't they?

[Badger]

The "investigations" run by Democrats should probably get a distinct thread? They lack the Muller's credibility and fairness...

Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) announced the next hearing, titled "Lessons from the Mueller Report: Presidential Obstruction and Other Crimes," on June 10 as a way to push forward with the committee's sprawling oversight investigation into the Trump administration amid stonewalling from the White House.

Disgusting.

Shoo.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am not buying the Mueller testimony, there was enough there to charge either Trump Jr with corruption with Kremlin or Trump with obstruction,  like Comey said. What he says, doesn't matter to me