NO EXONERATION

This topic contains 8 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  radiogeek 3 weeks, 5 days ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #41746

    Vitalogy
    Participant

    That’s according to Mueller.

    https://www.apnews.com/94323cfc164c4759ba6bf84ad2a46203

    My own opinion is that Mueller has permanently sullied his reputation with such a milk-toast conclusion that allows 2 different narratives of his work moving forward.

    I look forward to him being subpoenaed and forced to face questions before Congress.

    #41750

    radiogeek
    Participant

    I’m going to take a slightly different tack.

    The problem isn’t Mueller being milk toast. There are two problems that need solving for things to move in a positive direction.

    1) Get rid of Mitch McConnell. He’s the most dangerous asshole in DC today. He is the reason we have a Supreme Court that doesn’t respect precedent and worships executive power.

    2) The other issue is the idiotic DOJ ruling that sitting presidents cannot be indicted while in office. That ruling which has never been tested in the courts came from a DOJ tasked with protecting a previous president from investigation. It’s a bad rule, and it’s NOT the Constitution … just an internal rule.

    However, you can’t expect a DOJ official (Mueller) to simultaneously expect the executive branch to adhere to the rule of law (as exists) and at the same time unilaterally violate the law (as exists by internal rule).

    Mueller clearly gave as much as he could to the state of NY to look at without being hamstrung by DOJ rulings (Federal cases only), and if you don’t hear the engraved invitation for Congress to act … you’re not paying attention.

    #41751

    Andrew
    Participant

    Mueller sees himself not as a politician but as a civil servant who has completed his job. He made it quite clear in the Mueller Report: it’s the job of Congress to act now…or wait until Trump is out of office so he can be prosecuted for obstruction. Mueller’s report includes all the details required to indict Trump for obstruction once he is no longer president.

    Is it possible that if Mueller drops his non-partisan stance and starts openly advocating for impeachment and removal that 20+ Republican Senators and the Senate Republican Leadership will come around to the idea of impeachment and removal? I don’t think so. McConnell plays for keeps, and he clearly sees it to his party’s advantage to keep Trump in power. If McConnell doesn’t want Trump removed in a trial, is’ not not going to happen.

    So I don’t see what else Mueller could do to facilitate impeachment/removal.

    He could potentially damage Trump’s re-election chances, I guess. But it could be Mueller retains more credibility by appearing neutral and non-political rather than becoming yet another partisan cheerleader.

    #41752

    mwdxer1
    Participant

    Mueller did all he could. He did state that a President could not be indicted. Those are the rules as bad as they are. It is Congress to do something about it. The House may be willing, but O’Connell over at the Senate and his group will do nothing. They are afraid of their base and want to be re-elected. Too many in the conservative parts of the country think Trump is just fine as they believe what they hear over at Fox and other conservative sources. We really have a divided country. By the way, I read something the other day I was surprised. Only 25% of voters are registered at Republican. Only 25%. I thought it would have been higher.

    #41753

    edselehr
    Participant

    “The other issue is the idiotic DOJ ruling that sitting presidents cannot be indicted while in office. That ruling which has never been tested in the courts came from a DOJ tasked with protecting a previous president from investigation. It’s a bad rule, and it’s NOT the Constitution … just an internal rule.”

    You may not like the rule, and there are arguments to be made against it, but it’s not idiotic.

    I imagine the rule comes from speculating on the consequences of being able to indict a sitting president. If a president can be indicted, he can be convicted. If he can be convicted, he can be imprisoned, or even executed. Should the DOJ be able to imprison the president? Do you think the Framers intended the system to work that way? Would the president continue to be president if convicted? According the Article I Section 2 and 3, the only way to remove a president from office is by impeachment followed by conviction, not be criminal conviction.

    Clearly, indicting and convicting a president is not easily (if at all) compatible with the Constitution. I understand why the DOJ has such a policy.

    But, like you, it doesn’t mean that I have to like it.

    #41754

    Andrew
    Participant

    It doesn’t make sense for the President to be subject to federal indictment while in office. Why? Because HE IS IN CHARGE of the DOJ! Obviously there’s a huge conflict of interest there.

    Clearly, it makes more sense for Congress to impeach and remove him instead so he can then be subject to prosecution by a department he no longer controls.

    #41755

    bookemdono
    Participant

    What really needs to be clarified is why did William Barr say that both he and Rosenstein EXPECTED Mueller to make a criminal indictment if Mueller found the appropriate evidence. Barr’s comments all but gave Mueller the approval to do so, so why didn’t Mueller make the judgment?

    It looks like Mueller was using a different operations manual than the one Barr is.

    #41758

    edselehr
    Participant

    You’re assuming Barr is using an operations manual. He’s simply throwing as much shit at the wall as possible in order to cover up and defend Trump. The big question is, why? Why is Barr debasing himself and his reputation (a decent one, kinda) for this president? Because right now, Barr is as discredited as Trump when it comes to telling the truth about anything.

    #41763

    radiogeek
    Participant

    Edseler … et al … excellent comments.

    Yes, idiotic is an expression of frustration at the current moment. I understand the reasoning behind the DOJ rule.

    I guess my anger and remark is aimed at the misrepresentation of this DOJ ruling, as if it came from the courts and has been tested. Mueller has all but stated that if he were able to indict, he would have done so. Perhaps if he is now a private citizen, and if he gets a hypothetical question posed to him in a House hearing, he might admit such.

    If only we had a functioning Congress …

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.