We need Mueller to say what he actually THINKS

[georgephillip]

Or is Mueller just another partisan hack doing what he's always done on behalf of Republican presidents?

An example of my point.
.

An example of my point.

Regarding your point about Mueller's alleged integrity, if the following is true, does it make you question his principles and professionalism?

Mueller’s History of Cover-Ups

"Mueller’s talents were noticed early in his career at the Justice Department. As a U.S. Attorney in Boston during the mid-80s, he helped falsely convict four men for murders they didn’t commit in order to protect a powerful FBI informant—mobster James '******' Bulger.” According to the Boston Globe, 'Mueller was also in that position while ****** Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset.'"

 

[Mac1958]

Or is Mueller just another partisan hack doing what he's always done on behalf of Republican presidents?

An example of my point.
.

An example of my point.

Regarding your point about Mueller's alleged integrity, if the following is true, does it make you question his principles and professionalism?

Mueller’s History of Cover-Ups

"Mueller’s talents were noticed early in his career at the Justice Department. As a U.S. Attorney in Boston during the mid-80s, he helped falsely convict four men for murders they didn’t commit in order to protect a powerful FBI informant—mobster James '******' Bulger.” According to the Boston Globe, 'Mueller was also in that position while ****** Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset.'"

I don't have 100% faith in the integrity or professionalism or honesty of pretty much anyone.

Accusations and assumptions and extrapolations are flying about everyone. Mueller had a good overall reputation, and I haven't seen anything from him that would indicate a reason to believe anything else.

I know the battle lines here: Partisan Republicans are demonizing Mueller, partisan Democrats are demonizing Barr. I don't care much for either tribe.
.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Sadly...and I said it before Fox News has ran stories on it, that the Democrats are going to create a constitutional crises in which the SCOTUS will have to rule that the impeachment is not valid. Already one of the justices has said that the constitution doesn't have any precedent on what is supposed to happen when a crises is created by the government itself. I don't believe the forefathers, or anytime before now that America would have a genuine coup d' etat.

 

[Olde Europe]

Wingers.

Yeah, too lazy to do your homework. If you need a nanny to feed you, I would suggest you hire one. Otherwise, I am not here to remedy your ignorance. Had you read the obstruction chapter, and paid attention to a term like "pattern of behavior", you wouldn't spout the nonsense you do. Trump was informed, several times, actually, that his behavior was obstructive. Didn't stop him one bit. That's what a "pattern" is.

Look, read that damn thing. If you do, it will dawn on you that Trump, in Mueller's description, carefully and systematically attempted to break down and circumvent the wall between the Oval Office / West Wing and the Justice Department, erected after Nixon's pattern of obstruction. Once you've understood that, you also know why it would be enormously dangerous to let that precedent be established, and why a Congressional investigation, at the very least, is mandatory. Failing that, you patently have nothing of any worth to say on the matter.

"Wingers." You know, Mac, that word may resonate in your attic, but you've loaded it with your self-righteous crap to such an extent, it's devoid of meaning other than to reinforce your holier-than-thou piffle. The last 300 times you had no argument to make, or were to lazy to conceive of one, all you came up with was, "Wingers."

 

[Mac1958]

Wingers.

Yeah, too lazy to do your homework. If you need a nanny to feed you, I would suggest you hire one. Otherwise, I am not here to remedy your ignorance. Had you read the obstruction chapter, and paid attention to a term like "pattern of behavior", you wouldn't spout the nonsense you do. Trump was informed, several times, actually, that his behavior was obstructive. Didn't stop him one bit. That's what a "pattern" is.

Look, read that damn thing. If you do, it will dawn on you that Trump, in Mueller's description, carefully and systematically attempted to break down and circumvent the wall between the Oval Office / West Wing and the Justice Department, erected after Nixon's pattern of obstruction. Once you've understood that, you also know why it would be enormously dangerous to let that precedent be established, and why a Congressional investigation, at the very least, is mandatory. Failing that, you patently have nothing of any worth to say on the matter.

"Wingers." You know, Mac, that word may resonate in your attic, but you've loaded it with your self-righteous crap to such an extent, it's devoid of meaning other than to reinforce your holier-than-thou piffle. The last 300 times you had no argument to make, or were to lazy to conceive of one, all you came up with was, "Wingers."

Cool, thanks!
.

 

[georgephillip]

Or is Mueller just another partisan hack doing what he's always done on behalf of Republican presidents?

An example of my point.
.

An example of my point.

Regarding your point about Mueller's alleged integrity, if the following is true, does it make you question his principles and professionalism?

Mueller’s History of Cover-Ups

"Mueller’s talents were noticed early in his career at the Justice Department. As a U.S. Attorney in Boston during the mid-80s, he helped falsely convict four men for murders they didn’t commit in order to protect a powerful FBI informant—mobster James '******' Bulger.” According to the Boston Globe, 'Mueller was also in that position while ****** Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset.'"

I don't have 100% faith in the integrity or professionalism or honesty of pretty much anyone.

Accusations and assumptions and extrapolations are flying about everyone. Mueller had a good overall reputation, and I haven't seen anything from him that would indicate a reason to believe anything else.

I know the battle lines here: Partisan Republicans are demonizing Mueller, partisan Democrats are demonizing Barr. I don't care much for either tribe.
.

Accusations and assumptions and extrapolations are flying about everyone. Mueller had a good overall reputation, and I haven't seen anything from him that would indicate a reason to believe anything else.

I know the battle lines here: Partisan Republicans are demonizing Mueller, partisan Democrats are demonizing Barr. I don't care much for either tribe.

It seems to me Barr and Mueller belong to the same tribe: lifelong Republicans. Both have been accused of demonstrating blatant partisanship in the past, particularly with regard to the Iran-Contra investigation; although, I have to admit I had no idea ****** Bulger and Mueller had a connection before today:

"Ripping FBI special counsel Robert Mueller as a political 'zealot,' Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz reminded staunch Mueller supporters about the former FBI director's role in protecting 'notorious mass murderer' ****** Bulger as an FBI informant...."

Read Newsmax: Alan Dershowitz: Boston Remembers Mueller Protected ****** Bulger | Newsmax.com

"'He's the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of ****** Bulger as an FBI informer. Those of us in Boston don't have such a high regard for Mueller because we remember this story. The government had to pay out tens of millions of dollars because ****** Bulger, a notorious mass murderer, became a government informer against the mafia . . ."

 

[whitehall]

Is the crazy angry left going to invent a new legal precedent (applicable only to republicans) that would be based on what a judge or investigator "thinks" rather than what the evidence reveals? God help us if the crazy left ever gets it's slimy claws on the rest of the Constitution.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Mueller is hiding like a dirty rat


Mueller lies about keeping the investigation private. It was him leaking him having all prosecutors as Hillary supporters ..

Mueller could not keep this private because he was trying to scare trump not to go after the real criminals .. The deep state

A non crook would never have all prosecutors the opposite of the targets party ... But had to to try to cover up the deep state treason crimes
as Hillary supporters ..

Mueller could not keep this private because he was trying to scare trump not to go after the real criminals .. The deep state

A non crook would never have all prosecutors the opposite of the targets party ... But had to to try to cover up the deep state treason crimes

A totally corrupt person and big time liar. Robert Mueller !!!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Seems MANY have lost sight of what makes our justice system unique.

It really doesn't matter one bit what ANY prosecutor THINKS, including MULEr. The ONLY thing that matters is what they can PROVE.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Democrats and globalists are supported by stupid voters easily brainwashed by crooks


What is the 100% proof that it's the democrats and globalists supported by stupid voters??

Look at how the 18 yr old votes and the 60 yr old votes.

Since experience helps one learn good from bad... True from False and value from non value. If the experienced 60 yr old votes more conservative than the less experienced 18 yr old. That then PROVES conservatism as the best system

And their supporters as the most wise

 

[easyt65]

It's not Mueller's responsibility to prove Trump committed crimes; that responsibility lies with Congress which should require Mueller's public testimony under oath.

Ummm....MUELLER was appointed Special Counsel to investigate, to prove a crime was committed or not.

Congress in not part if the JUDICIAL Branch of the govt...

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Or is Mueller just another partisan hack doing what he's always done on behalf of Republican presidents?

An example of my point.
.

An example of my point.

Regarding your point about Mueller's alleged integrity, if the following is true, does it make you question his principles and professionalism?

Mueller’s History of Cover-Ups

"Mueller’s talents were noticed early in his career at the Justice Department. As a U.S. Attorney in Boston during the mid-80s, he helped falsely convict four men for murders they didn’t commit in order to protect a powerful FBI informant—mobster James '******' Bulger.” According to the Boston Globe, 'Mueller was also in that position while ****** Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset.'"

I don't have 100% faith in the integrity or professionalism or honesty of pretty much anyone.

Accusations and assumptions and extrapolations are flying about everyone. Mueller had a good overall reputation, and I haven't seen anything from him that would indicate a reason to believe anything else.

I know the battle lines here: Partisan Republicans are demonizing Mueller, partisan Democrats are demonizing Barr. I don't care much for either tribe.
.

You haven't seen him let leak that he has nearly all prosecutors Hillary supporters investigating the top of the OPPOSITE party !!

A special council investigating the top of the opposite party MUST have equally biased prosecutors in order to be a fair investigation and to be SEEN as equal

Mueller did the opposite

Proving he is guilty of high treason and a very unethical person

 

[georgephillip]

My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.

Predictably, all the silly wingers are highlighting only what supports their set-in-stone opinions and making assumptions that may or may not be true. Because that's what they do.

This stuff is too important for that. I understand his reticence to inject opinion on this matter, since his task was to find facts only. But we need more. The more detail the better, because detail forces out conjecture.

Maybe this will get so ******* ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.
.

Maybe this will get so ******* ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.

Or is Mueller just another partisan hack doing what he's always done on behalf of Republican presidents?

Mueller’s History of Cover-Ups

"What some people don’t know about Mueller is that he has a long history of leading government investigations that were diversions or cover-ups.

"These include the investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the investigation into the terrorist financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the FBI investigations into the crimes of September 11th, 2001.

"Today the public is beginning to realize that Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign is a similar diversion."

There was noting to cover up. He's appeasing the libs in ambiguity. You can't see this?

There was noting to cover up. He's appeasing the libs in ambiguity. You can't see this?

I don't see a lot of ambiguity when it comes to obstruction of justice in Mueller's report:

Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index (Vol. II, P. 113)

"I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel

"Overview

"In late January 2018, the media reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel fired based on purported conflicts of interest but McGahn had refused, saying he would quit instead.

"After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides, sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel.

"Each time he was approached, McGahn responded that he would not refute the press accounts because they were accurate in reporting on the President’s effort to have the Special Counsel removed.

"The President later personally met with McGahn in the Oval Office with only the Chief of Staff present and tried to get McGahn to say that the President never ordered him to fire the Special Counsel.

"McGahn refused and insisted his memory of the President’s direction to remove the Special Counsel was accurate.

"In that same meeting, the President challenged McGahn for taking notes of his discussions with the President and asked why he had told Special Counsel investigators that he had been directed to have the Special Counsel removed.

"Evidence..."

 

[WTH_Progs?]

My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.

Predictably, all the silly wingers are highlighting only what supports their set-in-stone opinions and making assumptions that may or may not be true. Because that's what they do.

This stuff is too important for that. I understand his reticence to inject opinion on this matter, since his task was to find facts only. But we need more. The more detail the better, because detail forces out conjecture.

Maybe this will get so ******* ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.
.

How come you progs have so much difficulty dealing with a loss?

For one thing Mueller is unlike Comey, he knows his place. Secondly, look up the suggestions of "obstruction of justice". They too are not what you'd hope for.

 

[Hellokitty]

If he were really principled, he would have left no ambiguities in his silly and excessively long report.

My guess is that he approached this as factual only, and didn't want to try to tie up loose ends or make assumptions.

There is certainly a time and place for that, but this isn't it.
.

The FISA warrant made the WRONG assumption, being that Carter Page was a spy for Russia...the Russia hoax was nothing but a cover=up for corruption within the intelligence agencies under Obama.

 

[Darkwind]

My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.

Predictably, all the silly wingers are highlighting only what supports their set-in-stone opinions and making assumptions that may or may not be true. Because that's what they do.

This stuff is too important for that. I understand his reticence to inject opinion on this matter, since his task was to find facts only. But we need more. The more detail the better, because detail forces out conjecture.

Maybe this will get so ******* ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.
.

Mueller is no longer important.

The only person with authority on this issue is Bill Barr. No indictments or charges were filed by Mueller, that means that none will be as Barr is in charge of the DoJ and ONLY the DoJ can file criminal charges.

The matter is closed except for the investigation into the massive fraud perpetrated on the American people by those who instigated this witch hunt.

 

[Olde Europe]

It seems to me Barr and Mueller belong to the same tribe: lifelong Republicans. Both have been accused of demonstrating blatant partisanship in the past, particularly with regard to the Iran-Contra investigation; although, I have to admit I had no idea ****** Bulger and Mueller had a connection before today:

You weren't aware of that connection because none exists, and now you are uncritically swallowing and regurgitating Dershowitz's shit, who in turn is peddling Hannity's and Limbaugh's shit. So says Nancy Gertner, the judge presiding over the case of those wrongfully imprisoned, and a friend of Dershowitz's:

In an April 8 interview with John Catsimatidis on his New York radio show, Mr. Dershowitz asserted that Mr. Mueller was “the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of ****** Bulger as an F.B.I. informer.” Mr. Mueller, he said, was “right at the center of it.” Mr. Bulger was a notorious crime boss in Boston, the head of the Winter Hill Gang, and also a secret source for the F.B.I.

There is no evidence that the assertion is true. I was the federal judge who presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison. Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.​

For pity's sake.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

None of this shit matters anymore people. Time to put the nonsense behind you and look forward. The house can impeach if they want but ultimately that too is irrelevant as the Senate will not convict.
Let the left play their petty games and focus on promoting all the good that America is undergoing.

 

[georgephillip]

It's not Mueller's responsibility to prove Trump committed crimes; that responsibility lies with Congress which should require Mueller's public testimony under oath.

Ummm....MUELLER was appointed Special Counsel to investigate, to prove a crime was committed or not.

Congress in not part if the JUDICIAL Branch of the govt...

Ummm....MUELLER was appointed Special Counsel to investigate, to prove a crime was committed or not.

Congress in not part if the JUDICIAL Branch of the govt...

Rightly or wrongly, Mueller believed he did not have the power to indict a sitting president; therefore, he preserved evidence and passed the ball to Congress, the only branch of government with the power of Impeachment.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.

Predictably, all the silly wingers are highlighting only what supports their set-in-stone opinions and making assumptions that may or may not be true. Because that's what they do.

This stuff is too important for that. I understand his reticence to inject opinion on this matter, since his task was to find facts only. But we need more. The more detail the better, because detail forces out conjecture.

Maybe this will get so ******* ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.
.

Maybe this will get so ******* ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.

Or is Mueller just another partisan hack doing what he's always done on behalf of Republican presidents?

Mueller’s History of Cover-Ups

"What some people don’t know about Mueller is that he has a long history of leading government investigations that were diversions or cover-ups.

"These include the investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the investigation into the terrorist financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the FBI investigations into the crimes of September 11th, 2001.

"Today the public is beginning to realize that Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign is a similar diversion."

There was noting to cover up. He's appeasing the libs in ambiguity. You can't see this?

There was noting to cover up. He's appeasing the libs in ambiguity. You can't see this?

I don't see a lot of ambiguity when it comes to obstruction of justice in Mueller's report:

Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index (Vol. II, P. 113)

"I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel

"Overview

"In late January 2018, the media reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel fired based on purported conflicts of interest but McGahn had refused, saying he would quit instead.

"After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides, sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel.

"Each time he was approached, McGahn responded that he would not refute the press accounts because they were accurate in reporting on the President’s effort to have the Special Counsel removed.

"The President later personally met with McGahn in the Oval Office with only the Chief of Staff present and tried to get McGahn to say that the President never ordered him to fire the Special Counsel.

"McGahn refused and insisted his memory of the President’s direction to remove the Special Counsel was accurate.

"In that same meeting, the President challenged McGahn for taking notes of his discussions with the President and asked why he had told Special Counsel investigators that he had been directed to have the Special Counsel removed.

"Evidence..."

I do. I saw none while clinton lied about cigars and bush lied about mwds and obama lied about healthcare.