Mueller speaks.

I think we will each hear what we want to hear. I heard a man say he was handcuffed by a standing rule that you can't indict a sitting president, but he can't say he was not guilty. Was this news?


And his words are worse than useless to us - he is wiping his hands of it,  and deferring to Congress, which  is the same as saying "let it go Folks" because Congress has proved they won't act no matter what.   We have no one protecting us, no less serving us.   Its over for us, as far as this issue goes.  


I still have hope after watching the Justin Amash town hall in Michigan. Dems will be forced to impeach. A Republican speaking out to his constituents will make Dems look as if they are not willing to go on the record that this man has destroyed all expectations of decent behavior.


Morganna said:
I think we will each hear what we want to hear. 

Unless he is announcing that Trump will spend the rest of his term in a pillory with people throwing rotten eggs and dog poop at him, I doubt it.

Just speaking for myself here...


Also speaking for me.


One point that was interesting is that his people have no involvement in releasing the underlying information.  So who is?  Barr?  Trump?


jamie said:
Barr?  Trump?

 A distinction without difference.


So Mueller chickened out, and now says that Congress must act (except he won't testify to congress and his report is heavily redacted and this will be hist first and last public statement on the matter). So since he is not sharing his findings, he is basically saying that congress needs to do his while 2-year investigation over again. At which point, conveniently the next elections will be over, and also conveniently DOJ and everyone else is not complying with requests and queries from congress. Not exactly a profile in courage is he? 


basil said:
 Not exactly a profile in courage is he? 

 I just don't get it. He couldn't determine whether a crime HAD been committed and he couldn't determine whether a crime HAD NOT been committed.  Aren't those the kind of circumstances that warrant an investigation?  Why did he stop before he had reached a point where he could conclude one way or the other? 


His delivery sounds like he's appearing in a hostage video. I'm stuck on the fact that there is no way to indict a sitting president. Unconstitutional? What were the framers thinking?

Those words must be music to Trump's ears. What can he be cooking up with Stephen Miller? I wonder if Steve Bannon put in a call from his Italian Monastery to discuss his plans to overthrow the Pope. I can hear Trump now on Pope Francis, "I was never a fan."


Morganna said:

What were the framers thinking?

Some of them may have been thinking that the consequences of an indictment — defense, trial, etc. — would cripple a president’s ability to carry out the duties of the office. Some may have been thinking that a judge or a jury, unaccountable as they are to a national vote, shouldn’t have the power to control the fate of the winner of a presidential election. 

Were they unwise, in your opinion, to leave it for us to debate and decide rather than stipulate a course in the Constitution?


If Trump is impeached and removed, he's no longer a sitting President and can be indicted. 

Same if he loses in 2020. 


What did you want him to say? He was handcuffed by not being able to bring an indictment against DJT. He's a man who deeply believes in the rule of law, and the Constitution says investigating and impeaching is the sole responsibility of Congress. 

Read between the lines. He is saying what he can say and it's damning but it follows the law.


South_Mountaineer said:
If Trump is impeached and removed, he's no longer a sitting President and can be indicted. 
Same if he loses in 2020. 

 Where could we hold the party? 


mrincredible said:


South_Mountaineer said:
If Trump is impeached and removed, he's no longer a sitting President and can be indicted. 
Same if he loses in 2020. 
 Where could we hold the party? 

 January 20, 2021 in Washington. 

Cuff him at noon. 


South_Mountaineer said:
 January 20, 2021 in Washington. 
Cuff him at noon. 

 It may be the only chance to get him. Seriously. Unless he can resign a week early and get a pardon from Pence, he may need to skedaddle for Russia when he leaves office. 


mrincredible said:
 It may be the only chance to get him. Seriously. Unless he can resign a week early and get a pardon from Pence, he may need to skedaddle for Russia when he leaves office. 

 I might be ok with that.


mrincredible said:
 It may be the only chance to get him. Seriously. Unless he can resign a week early and get a pardon from Pence, he may need to skedaddle for Russia when he leaves office. 

 I might be ok with that.


Red_Barchetta said:


mrincredible said:
 It may be the only chance to get him. Seriously. Unless he can resign a week early and get a pardon from Pence, he may need to skedaddle for Russia when he leaves office. 
 I might be ok with that.

So if he was a fugitive overseas is the Secret Service still obligated to protect him?  blank stare 


Morganna said:
His delivery sounds like he's appearing in a hostage video. 

I thought that as well.


DaveSchmidt said:
Some of them may have been thinking that the consequences of an indictment — defense, trial, etc. — would cripple a president’s ability to carry out the duties of the office. Some may have been thinking that a judge or a jury, unaccountable as they are to a national vote, shouldn’t have the power to control the fate of the winner of a presidential election. 
Were they unwise, in your opinion, to leave it for us to debate and decide rather than stipulate a course in the Constitution?

 Well, if a president could be indicted,  a judge and jury would be as you point out unaccountable to a national vote, which means the decision would be less political, so more objective, the way it is for the rest of us.

As to crippling the president's ability to carry out the duties of the office, this president claims that even the discussion of impeachment makes him unwilling to carry out his duties of office, which may save us all, although its been pointed out how much both Nixon under the threat of impeachment and Clinton going through impeachment hearings, got accomplished. If the framers felt congress should decide, and congress worries about future elections, (that is true now for both the Dems and the GOP) how is allowing politics to enter the arena any more helpful?


While I'm a big fan of debate, I'm not seeing any deciding going on, but maybe I'm being too impatient.

Another conclusion might be, perhaps the framers never had a DJT in mind. He just may want to test that shoot someone on 5th Ave. theory.



Senator Booker is saying "Begin impeachment proceedings immediately." So how many of those running are in? Warren who was the first, Harris, Beto, Castro, Seth Moulton. Who else?


Maybe we should impeach Mueller first. What a coward.


DaveSchmidt said:


Morganna said:

What were the framers thinking?
Some of them may have been thinking that the consequences of an indictment — defense, trial, etc. — would cripple a president’s ability to carry out the duties of the office. Some may have been thinking that a judge or a jury, unaccountable as they are to a national vote, shouldn’t have the power to control the fate of the winner of a presidential election. 
Were they unwise, in your opinion, to leave it for us to debate and decide rather than stipulate a course in the Constitution?

 I think they were unwise to design a system that tried to wish away political faction. The separation of powers by institution is an elegant theory, but in practice power aligns by party, not branch of government.

(In case that's not clear -- the idea that Congress would be a check on the President in the kind of situation we currently find ourselves in was, to my mind, a naive view of how political power works on the part of the framers.)


Senator Warren explained it all very simply, on the Twitter last month:

The Mueller report lays out facts showing that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election to help Donald Trump and Donald Trump welcomed that help. Once elected, Donald Trump obstructed the investigation into that attack.

Mueller put the next step in the hands of Congress: “Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.” The correct process for exercising that authority is impeachment.

Lightening things up a bit as we anguish over Mueller's reluctance to drop the "Just the facts, ma'am" act:

Mueller Stirs Controversy by Urging Americans to Read

By 

May 29, 2019

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The special counsel Robert Mueller ignited a firestorm of controversy on Wednesday by recommending that millions of Americans read.

Mueller, seemingly oblivious to the uproar he was about to create, repeatedly commented that there was valuable information available to the American people only by reading a long book.

At the White House, sources said that Donald J. Trump was furious about Mueller’s statement because he interpreted the special counsel’s pro-reading message as a thinly veiled attack on him.

Speaking to reporters later, on the White House lawn, Trump made it clear that Mueller’s exhortation to read had fallen on deaf ears.

“I’ve never read any of my books, and I certainly don’t intend to read his,” Trump said.




In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.