It's Mueller Time!

[Faun]

Even Ken Starr said in his report he did not offer up any recommendations to Congress regarding impeachment. But that they could read the facts as he laid out in his report and reach their own determination.

He clearly stated that the presided committed crimes and may have not used the word recommend but he clearly did state there was grounds for impeachment.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/starr_report/report.pdf
As required by Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the UnitedStates Code, the Office of the Independent Counsel(“OIC” or “Office”) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

Read the full Mueller report - CNNPolitics
By contrast, Muller makes this conclusion:
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time , if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach
that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him.


They are not even in the same ballpark.

What Muller did was flip justice on its head throwing out the very basis of out justice system. He declines to say anywhere that the president committed any crime or that there was any credible evidence that establishes such. Instead, he states that they could not establish innocence. The key here is This:

"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

They did not bother to establish intent which is a cornerstone with any obstruction case. In order to state that the president clearly obstructed justice you have to make some rather large leaps in conclusions that simply are not supported by the evidence as presented. I have no doubt that Muller would have made some very similar statements to Star had he been able to clearly establish that Trump was obstructing justice.

Wishful thinking that he “clearly stated” Trumps liabilities.

It is not wishful thinking - it is fact. Of course you need to actually read what I wrote because it was not Trump that line refers to but Clinton.

You might want to actually read the post before responding to it.

You have a habit of confusion

Not sure how I can be more clear. Faun clearly stated that Star did not recommend impeachment. I can't really help if weather wants to ignore the post I was responding to and only read the first line of mine.

Besides, if that confused him I doubt me being much more clear would yield a response that had any real thought in it...

It is not the role of this Office to determine whether the President’s actions warrant impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate; those judgments are, of course, constitutionally entrusted to the legislative branch.(19) This Office is authorized, rather, to conduct criminal investigations and to seek criminal prosecutions for matters within its jurisdiction.(20) In carrying out its investigation, however, this Office also has a statutory duty to disclose to Congress information that “may constitute grounds for an impeachment,” a task that inevitably requires judgment about the seriousness of the acts revealed by the evidence.

 

[Obama2020]

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

then why did they do the investigation and waste our money if they knew all of that?

That really is the question.
I think Muller put himself in a real mental pretzel when he states that he could not indict the president, performs a massive investigation and then even fails to mention weather or not they were able establish a crime was committed at all. It is clear to me that Muller was trying to play a political game rather than execute the office he was appointed to good faith.

It's the job of the house/congress to 'impeach a president' not Mueller. Given the OLC opinion, Mueller's job was to investigate and assemble facts and prosecute all the relevant actors. Nice job Mueller !!!

The full list of Mueller indictments and plea deals
All of Robert Mueller’s indictments and plea deals in the Russia investigation
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence.

2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreementby lying to them). He was sentenced to a combined seven and a half years in prison.

3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.

4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.

22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.

23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.

24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.

36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations — related to hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York (that Mueller had handed off). But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign, and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story.

Finally, there is one other person Mueller initially investigated, but handed over to others in the Justice Department to charge: Sam Patten. This Republican operative and lobbyist pleaded guilty to not registering as a foreign agent with his work for Ukrainian political bigwigs, and agreed to cooperate with the government.

That’s the full list, but we’ll delve into the charges in a bit more detail below.

 

[FA_Q2]

He clearly stated that the presided committed crimes and may have not used the word recommend but he clearly did state there was grounds for impeachment.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/starr_report/report.pdf
As required by Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the UnitedStates Code, the Office of the Independent Counsel(“OIC” or “Office”) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

Read the full Mueller report - CNNPolitics
By contrast, Muller makes this conclusion:
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time , if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach
that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him.


They are not even in the same ballpark.

What Muller did was flip justice on its head throwing out the very basis of out justice system. He declines to say anywhere that the president committed any crime or that there was any credible evidence that establishes such. Instead, he states that they could not establish innocence. The key here is This:

"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

They did not bother to establish intent which is a cornerstone with any obstruction case. In order to state that the president clearly obstructed justice you have to make some rather large leaps in conclusions that simply are not supported by the evidence as presented. I have no doubt that Muller would have made some very similar statements to Star had he been able to clearly establish that Trump was obstructing justice.

Wishful thinking that he “clearly stated” Trumps liabilities.

It is not wishful thinking - it is fact. Of course you need to actually read what I wrote because it was not Trump that line refers to but Clinton.

You might want to actually read the post before responding to it.

You have a habit of confusion

Not sure how I can be more clear. Faun clearly stated that Star did not recommend impeachment. I can't really help if weather wants to ignore the post I was responding to and only read the first line of mine.

Besides, if that confused him I doubt me being much more clear would yield a response that had any real thought in it...

It is not the role of this Office to determine whether the President’s actions warrant impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate; those judgments are, of course, constitutionally entrusted to the legislative branch.(19) This Office is authorized, rather, to conduct criminal investigations and to seek criminal prosecutions for matters within its jurisdiction.(20) In carrying out its investigation, however, this Office also has a statutory duty to disclose to Congress information that “may constitute grounds for an impeachment,” a task that inevitably requires judgment about the seriousness of the acts revealed by the evidence.

And? How does that support anything that you have stated?

Star points out he does not determine if the president is going to be impeached. He was responsible for making a recommendation though. That was his and Muller's job.

Muller DIRECTLY contradicts himself in his report when he states that there is no crime for him to investigate because they cannot charge Trump and then goes ahead and investigates anyway.

Doublethink in action.

 

[FA_Q2]

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

then why did they do the investigation and waste our money if they knew all of that?

That really is the question.
I think Muller put himself in a real mental pretzel when he states that he could not indict the president, performs a massive investigation and then even fails to mention weather or not they were able establish a crime was committed at all. It is clear to me that Muller was trying to play a political game rather than execute the office he was appointed to good faith.

It's the job of the house/congress to 'impeach a president' not Mueller. Given the OLC opinion, Mueller's job was to investigate and assemble facts and prosecute all the relevant actors. Nice job Mueller !!!

The full list of Mueller indictments and plea deals
All of Robert Mueller’s indictments and plea deals in the Russia investigation
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was arrested in July 2017 and pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence.

2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreementby lying to them). He was sentenced to a combined seven and a half years in prison.

3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February 2018 he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.

4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October 2018.

22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.

23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case last year.

24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.

36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations — related to hush money payments to women who alleged affairs with Donald Trump, as part of a separate investigation in New York (that Mueller had handed off). But in November, he made a plea deal with Mueller too, for lying to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign, and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story.

Finally, there is one other person Mueller initially investigated, but handed over to others in the Justice Department to charge: Sam Patten. This Republican operative and lobbyist pleaded guilty to not registering as a foreign agent with his work for Ukrainian political bigwigs, and agreed to cooperate with the government.

That’s the full list, but we’ll delve into the charges in a bit more detail below.

It is up to the legislative branch to actually impeach. It was Muller's job to investigate and make recommendations.

Otherwise, there is no investigation.

 

[MAGAman]

It is up to the legislative branch to actually impeach. It was Muller's job to investigate and make recommendations.

Otherwise, there is no investigation.

Millers job was to investigate and recommend indictments. Not Impeachment.

I suppose that's what you meant.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is up to the legislative branch to actually impeach. It was Muller's job to investigate and make recommendations.

Otherwise, there is no investigation.

Millers job was to investigate and recommend indictments. Not Impeachment.

I suppose that's what you meant.

If he determines that indictment is not possible because of OLC opinions then he should have recommended an action that could have been taken - impeachment.

 

[sparky]

well this whole Mueller deal went as predicted, flushed out the bowels of washington quicker than sh*t through a goose....

~S~

 

[Faun]

Wishful thinking that he “clearly stated” Trumps liabilities.

It is not wishful thinking - it is fact. Of course you need to actually read what I wrote because it was not Trump that line refers to but Clinton.

You might want to actually read the post before responding to it.

You have a habit of confusion

Not sure how I can be more clear. Faun clearly stated that Star did not recommend impeachment. I can't really help if weather wants to ignore the post I was responding to and only read the first line of mine.

Besides, if that confused him I doubt me being much more clear would yield a response that had any real thought in it...

It is not the role of this Office to determine whether the President’s actions warrant impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate; those judgments are, of course, constitutionally entrusted to the legislative branch.(19) This Office is authorized, rather, to conduct criminal investigations and to seek criminal prosecutions for matters within its jurisdiction.(20) In carrying out its investigation, however, this Office also has a statutory duty to disclose to Congress information that “may constitute grounds for an impeachment,” a task that inevitably requires judgment about the seriousness of the acts revealed by the evidence.

And? How does that support anything that you have stated?

Star points out he does not determine if the president is going to be impeached. He was responsible for making a recommendation though. That was his and Muller's job.

Muller DIRECTLY contradicts himself in his report when he states that there is no crime for him to investigate because they cannot charge Trump and then goes ahead and investigates anyway.

Doublethink in action.

It shows that Special, and Independent, Counsels don't recommend impeachment, which is what I first said to you when you claimed there was nothing from stopping Mueller from recommending that Congress impeach Trump. And while Starr did conclude Clinton broke the law and stated those violations could be grounds for impeachment, he did so in a report that was provided to Congress. Whereas Mueller's report was to the Department of Justice. It makes no sense telling the Department of Justice the president may be impeached. And unlike the Starr report, Mueller was guided by the OLC opinion a sitting president can't be indicted, so it made no sense to inform the Department of Justice Trump broke the law. And also, Ken Starr was extremely biased where Mueller was not. Ken Starr, prior to being appointed Independent Counsel, had authored a brief for Paula Jones in her suit against Bill Clinton. I'm not saying Clinton was innocent, but how the hell was Ken Starr appointed to head an investigation against him?

 

[MAGAman]

If he determines that indictment is not possible because of OLC opinions then he should have recommended an action that could have been taken - impeachment.

No..

Mueller's investigation was a part of the Executive Branch.

Impeachment is the Legislative Branch.

One Branch does not investigate for the other. That would be stupid and chaotic.

 

[Obama2020]

It shows that Special, and Independent, Counsels don't recommend impeachment, which is what I first said to you when you claimed there was nothing from stopping Mueller from recommending that Congress impeach Trump. And while Starr did conclude Clinton broke the law and stated those violations could be grounds for impeachment, he did so in a report that was provided to Congress. Whereas Mueller's report was to the Department of Justice. It makes no sense telling the Department of Justice the president may be impeached. And unlike the Starr report, Mueller was guided by the OLC opinion a sitting president can't be indicted, so it made no sense to inform the Department of Justice Trump broke the law. And also, Ken Starr was extremely biased where Mueller was not. Ken Starr, prior to being appointed Independent Counsel, had authored a brief for Paula Jones in her suit against Bill Clinton. I'm not saying Clinton was innocent, but how the hell was Ken Starr appointed to head an investigation against him?

Absolutely! With Mueller's investigation in hand, the department of Justice (DOJ) fully knows what the issues are and the obvious implications under the current constitution.
What follows (because of the OLC opinion) is up to the officials elected by 'we the divided people'... and a supreme court stuffed with very conservative judges.

IMHO, we're in a twilight zone that potentially redefines the moral foundations of a warped democratic civilization.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is up to the legislative branch to actually impeach. It was Muller's job to investigate and make recommendations.

Otherwise, there is no investigation.

Millers job was to investigate and recommend indictments. Not Impeachment.

I suppose that's what you meant.

If he determines that indictment is not possible because of OLC opinions then he should have recommended an action that could have been taken - impeachment.

IMO Mueller's job was not to recommend impeachment or no impeachment. Re the President, his job was not to indict or not indict. His job was to investigate and advise the DOJ of any crime committed.

In any investigation, no investigator can say with any competence or authority that a person did not commit a crime. All he/she can do is state what evidence, if any, is determined that a person did commit a crime. If there is insufficient evidence to state that a person committed a crime, the person is innocent under the law.

Mueller was to investigate whether the President or anybody associated with his campaign or staff illegally colluded with Russia. His conclusion was that there is no evidence that any American, including the President and his team, illegally colluded with Russia.

In the most irresponsible and malicious manner, however, his report cited a number of instances that there could have been intent to obstruct justice IF there had been intent to obstruct. He did not establish any such intent. And in his Congressional testimony, he admitted that his investigation of a crime that was never committed was not obstructed by the White House in any way.

Hillary Clinton maintained an illegal email server, used to pass along classified information in numerous cases, destroyed evidence before the investigation could happen, and was untruthful in her testimony to Congress. Comey agreed that all that happened. But he had written a document exonerating her before he interviewed her and her staff, and he testified before Congress that he would not recommend indictment because no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her because 'there was no intent to commit a crime.'

Mueller could at the very least have put the matter to rest by stating that no commission of a crime was established re President Trump and his team, and that there was insufficient evidence to establish an intent to obstruct justice. But his intent was to destroy the President and he and his team did their level best to feed the haters with that report.

IMO it was disgusting and shameful to any person with any sense of honor or integrity.

 

[Lakhota]

Time to bring Mueller back to investigate Ukrainegate!

 

[WEATHER53]

Time to bring Mueller back to investigate Ukrainegate!

Sure and two more years of nothingness.
Are you really that anxious for the same result-Trump declared even better than innocent because no charges were even ever brought?
Participation trophies really screwed you all up. You are so dumb as to losing that you request the same methods that beat your ass the last time out.

 

[westwall]

Time to bring Mueller back to investigate Ukrainegate!

Yeah, his last investigation went so great for you!

 

[Faun]

Time to bring Mueller back to investigate Ukrainegate!

Yeah, his last investigation went so great for you!

The last investigation did what it was supposed to do -- determine if trump conspired with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election.

 

[westwall]

Time to bring Mueller back to investigate Ukrainegate!

Yeah, his last investigation went so great for you!

The last investigation did what it was supposed to do -- determine if trump conspired with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election.

And found none. Thanks for allowing me to point that out.

Funny how herr mewler neglected to look into the conspiracy between the shrilary campaign and the Ukraine though.

Huh. I wonder why?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Time to bring Mueller back to investigate Ukrainegate!

You will hate to see Obama going to prison

 

[Oddball]

 

[Faun]

Time to bring Mueller back to investigate Ukrainegate!

Yeah, his last investigation went so great for you!

The last investigation did what it was supposed to do -- determine if trump conspired with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election.

And found none. Thanks for allowing me to point that out.

Funny how herr mewler neglected to look into the conspiracy between the shrilary campaign and the Ukraine though.

Huh. I wonder why?

Correct, he found nothing. That happens in investigations. They aren't meant to find someone guilty; they're meant to find the truth. Sometimes that leads to guilt and sometimes that leads to innocence.

I'm not sure what your problem is with Hillary and the Ukraine?

 

[Lakhota]

GOP rival Bill Weld says Trump has committed ‘treason, pure and simple’

I agree!