The tragic Non-decision made by Mueller reminds me of the movie Saving Private Ryan.

[shockey80]

In the scene where Tom Hanks character and his men attack the German radar outpost they capture a German soldier. They have a big argument on what to do with the German soldier. They can't take him with them. Hanks character does not want to kill him. He could have ordered a couple of his men to bring the prisoner back to base, he did not.

Hanks character decides to let the German go free and HOPES he will be picked up by an American patrol and brought to a POW camp. He passed the problem on. The German rejoined the war and killed Hanks character at the end of the movie.

Mueller also passed the problem on, in the hope someone else would fix the problem. This was a tragic mistake. Muellers entire legacy and reputation may be destroyed by his lack of courage on taking a stand. Mueller should have made it clear in his report what he thought should be done with the evidence he had found. This was too big of a moment, a dangerous moment to play it safe and pass the buck on. This moment called for great courage. Mueller failed to rise to the occasion.

The Democrats and news media are blaming Barr for what he did with the Mueller report, rightly so. However, it was Mueller that opened the door for Barr to commit obstruction.

[Blues Heron]

1. Mueller's a puke, nuff said

they protect their own 8 ways to sunday

[we can do it]

2. That's bullshit.

[Nuggets]

31. Really?

They did with the Iran Contra scandal

They did with Bush Iraq War profiteering

Why would it be any different now that any Republican with a modicum of integrity left or was driven out years ago?

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

7. Wow

that's kinda inflammatory language there Blues.............. Mueller's record doesn't say that and Mueller isn't an elected R...........

[zentrum]

24. On the other hand,

...he helped promote to Congress the lie of WMD's in Iraq, to grease the wheels for invasion. This corporate war for oil has killed and damaged millions, as well as the soul of our country.

He's never been asked about it, nor apologized. Colin Powell, meanwhile, whom Muller cited to bolster his own testimony, has apologized and said it was the biggest regret of his life.

I've never seen a Republican in any seat of authority who can be trusted to serioulsy put the welfare of the people over the desires of the power elite.

[Dopers_Greed]

41. True, and the Iraq War ended up getting Trump elected

The invasion destabilized the Middle East
Which led to ISIS gaining power
Which gave fuel to the RW media to make Islam a boogeyman
Which led to further extremism on the right in the West
Which the Repukes capitalized on leading up to 2016

[zentrum]

76. Yes, and that's

...just list Number one of how distructive it was and how its deeper trends lead to Trump.

So why is Mueller so damn trusted to confront his own?

[triron]

82. Except Trump didn't get 'elected'. He was installed.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

80. wait, what?

Mueller was part of the illegal invasion of Iraq sham? How does the head of the FBI testify about things going on in other countries?

[zentrum]

99. Even we ordinary

.....citizens smelled a rat regarding the WMD claim about Iraq based on Ambassadors Wilson's investigations and Cheney's lust for the pipeline. And we were in the streets by the hundreds of thousands worldwide trying to prevent this disasterous invasion.

So Mueller, who had inside intelligence sources, had to have known too.

But here he is:
[link:http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4740652/mueller-wmd-21103]

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

100. I did not know that............

[we can do it]

36. Trolls are prolific today😐

[SunSeeker]

61. I don't see any trolls on this thread. Who are you referring to? nt

[pazzyanne]

14. JUST

[SunSeeker]

18. He bent over backwards for Trump, that's for sure.

Anyone who has read Vol. I should be stunned that he found no conspiracy, despite all that evidence he listed. It was ridiculous to conclude that what the Russians did for Trump was of no determinable value--so in essence he gave the electioneering for Trump $0 monetary value--thus knocking out an element of the conpiracy. That is like saying a political ad has no value to a candidate. Utter BS. Of course he then passes the buck to Congress in Vol. II, claiming it would be "unfair" to Trump to conclude he committed a crime if he can't prosecute him. So stupid. Why did Mueller take the fucking job if he didn't want to, or didn't think he could, do it? His job was to determine if any crimes were committed. He didn't do that with regard to the central subject of his investigation. He abdicated his duty, letting Barr step right in.

We'll see what he says when (and if) he testifies, but he so far has let the country down with regard to Trump.

[mazzarro]

52. +1000% - n/t

[hedda_foil]

57. No monetary value, huh? How about the millions in rubles paid for Facebook ads?

The whole idea that no determinable value could be assigned to Putin's help for the burnt pumpkin's campaign is bizarre beyond belief. Let's see ... How much did the GRU pay for office space, computer usage and salaries for their troll farm "Internet Research Agency"? What was the total cost of their Facebook campaigns (pro Trump, anti-Clinton, anti-voting, pro-Stein, pro-Bernie, etc, etc, etc? All of those expenditures inured to Trump's benefit and had actual cash value in the tens of millions of dollars.

What the Fu*k?

[SunSeeker]

59. Right?

[shanny]

75. His task was to determine

if there was a conspiracy between the Russian GOVERNMENT and the campaign. Not a bunch of random Russians. I personally think it was tightly constrained by Rosenstein and, of course, designed to be plausibly deniable by Putin, the trained KGB agent.

So it doesn't surprise me that Mueller was unable to prove a conspiracy.

The obstruction case is clear though and becoming clearer every day.

[cilla4progress]

102. I agree.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Find your balls, people! Don't cloak it in constitutional niceties. Mueller missed his moment. The word for this is appeasement, and we've seen this nightmare before.

trumpf won't stop until Obama's in jail.

[Catherine Vincent]

64. I agree

For all we know, he can't stand Trump but his focus is on the republican party.

[essaynnc]

3. Until we get the unredacted report...

Who knows what's under all of the black ink? Perhaps it's the accusations and the recommendations we're looking for!

[shockey80]

6. If that's the case, why is Mueller not speaking out?

[rainin]

17. What do you want him to do? Go on all the Sunday shows?

He's a prosecutor. He still works for the Justice department which might be an advantage to justice one day. We don't yet know if/when he will testify nor what he will say when he does.

Going on all the shows will reduce him to a shill in the eyes of the public.

[SunSeeker]

20. Mueller should have said in the report whether Trump committed obstruction. That was his job.

Even Barr said so.

[barbtries]

27. Barr is the bad guy here.

Mueller said he could not exonerate trump of that charge. Barr left that part out.

[SunSeeker]

34. Of course Barr is. But Mueller opened the door for him by not doing his job. nt

[barbtries]

38. as i said below,

i'm not ready to concede that yet, but history will tell.

[uponit7771]

86. +1,

[kentuck]

4. I think Mueller did make a decision.

He decided that he did not have the authority to indict a president, any president. In my opinion, he believed that only the Congress has the authority to get rid of a sitting President.

It does bring into question how someone in the Justice Department, which is part of the Executive Branch, would be able to fire his boss?

I think there would be a lot of constitutional issues if he had indicted Donald Trump. It belongs in the lap of the Congress.

[shockey80]

9. I am not saying he should have indicted Trump.

He should have been more forceful on why he could not indict Trump and why it should go to congress for impeachment. He could have said what the 800 prosecutors said in their letter. The only reason for not indicting Trump is because you cannot indict a president. He is guilty of obstruction. This should go to congress and impeachment hearings.

[SunSeeker]

23. Exactly. How is it 800 prosecutors were able to come to a conclusion but he was not?

[zentrum]

26. Precisely.

[StarfishSaver]

79. Because those FORMER prosectors don't work for DOJ, aren't bound by it's rules

and are free to venture an opinion. Mueller doesn't and isn't.

If Mueller that he didn't believe there was sufficient evidence to sustain an indictment and said in the report that DOJ policy prohibited the indictment of a sitting president but even if it didn't, he would recommend he not be indicted because conviction would be unlikely, people would have thrown a fit, insisting that it was out of line to express an opinion about a matter that he should have left to Congress.

[SunSeeker]

81. There are no DOJ rules preventing him from rendering an opinion on whether Trump committed a crime.

It is what he was hired to do. Why did he take the job if he thought he couldn't do it?


And no, people would not have "thrown a fit." Mueller did exactly what you describe, except he did it in Vol. I of the report regarding conspiracy with Russia.

[StarfishSaver]

83. There are reasons an investigator doesn't render an opinion about guilt or innocence

when a prosecution is declined. It is standard practice - a practice that Comey violated in connection with Hillary Clinton.

And no, Mueller wasn't hired to recommend for or against prosecution of the president or to give his opinion about his guilt or innocence. Read the statute and his appointment letter.

But like many people here, you seem to believe you're an expert on what the Special Counsel should and shouldn't have done, and that if he didn't do his job the way you dictate, he's incompetent, crooked or both, so I doubt there's much that can be said to change your mind

[SunSeeker]

85. Even Barr, his boss, said he should have rendered an opinion on obstruction, so why didn't he?

He absolutely did render an opinion when it came to the issue of conspiracy.

The DOJ policy is that when prosecutors decide to not prosecute, they should simply say that and not trash the person. THAT is the policy Comey violated when he announced there was insufficient basis to prosecute Hillary for anything, but then he gratuitously added that she was nonetheless "extremely reckless,." Comey said that in a misguided attempt to save his reputation with his conservative Republican buddies. It backfired spectacularly for him.

There is and was no rule against a prosecutor rendering of an opinion as to whether a person committed a chargeable crime. That's a prosecutor's job.

I did read the appointment letter. It tasked him to investigate and prosecute where he "believed" (i.e., based on his opinion) it was appropriate:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017

...

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).


(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/7/1730593/-Mueller-s-Appointment-Letter-Says-More-Than-You-Might-Think

And then, per the special counsel statute that Neal Katyal helped write, he was required to submit a report describing what he found in his investigation, and any prosecutions of federal crimes he believed were appropriate. So, in other words, he was investigate to determine if federal crimes were committed, and if so, to prosecute those perpetrators.

If he was just investigating for shits and giggles (i.e., not to determine if federal crimes were committed, as you suggest) then the appointment letter would not have authorized him to prosecute those crimes.

[StarfishSaver]

87. Yes, Barr said that. And you fell for it?

He said that as an excuse for him to exonerate Trump instead of turning the report over to Congress as Mueller intended. "I HAD to exonerate the president. If only Mueller had made a recommendation, I would have followed it. But Mueller refused to do it, so he left me no CHOICE!"

I'm glad you read the materials. But you still don't seem to understand that neither the statute nor the letter authorized Mueller to indict the president. His task was to investigate and to, if warranted, bring prosecutions arising from that investigation. But DOJ policy does not ppermit him to bring a prosecution against the president. It makes no sense for him to recommend for or against an action that is not available to DOJ.

Arguing otherwise is like complaining that he didn't recommend that Trump be prosecuted for state crimes in New York. His mandate does not expressly exclude state crimes but since he doesn't have the authority to prosecute state crimes, it would have been inappropriate for him to recommend such a prosecution.

By the same token, he doesn't have the authority to prosecute a president, so it would have been inappropriate for him to recommend for or against doing so.

[SunSeeker]

92. I did not "fall for it." I am stating the rules correctly.

Mueller gave Trump a gift by not giving an opinion on obstruction, while giving one on conspiracy. And gave Barr an opening to fill the vacuum he created on whether obstruction occurred.

You and I disagree as to whether it would be "fair" to Trump for Mueller to state whetherTrump committed a crime if he cannot prosecute him. You incorrectly asserted there was a rule against Mueller opining whether Trump did. There is not. So that just leaves the rather subjective "fairness" issue, and you and I simply disagree on that.

[H2O Man]

45. Had he done so,

the report would not have seen the light of day. You do realize that Barr could have -- and would have -- ruled that it violated DOJ guidelines, don't you?

[mazzarro]

56. That should not be his concern but left to DOJ and Congress - n/t

[H2O Man]

72. Respectfully disagree.

If you were familiar with Rosenstein's third notice of directions to Mr. Mueller, you would know exactly why that was his concern, and indeed, had to be his concern.

[The_jackalope]

10. That's exactly how I read it too.

Recommending an indictment under these circumstances would have caused the country more trouble than it could have solved. The issue would have stayed within the DoJ, which is under enemy control, and it would have stalled there. This way the problem gets taken away from the DoJ and given to another branch of government that may be able to do something.

[SunSeeker]

22. No, he should have said whether Trump committed a crime. That was Mueller's job.

He didn't have to prosecute him. He just had.to do what he was hired to do.

[kentuck]

55. "He's guilty but there's nothing I can do about it"?

That would not have been fair or just under our justice system.

His rationale was that he should not make a declaration of guilty or innocent if he was prevented from indicting by the DOJ .

[mitch96]

42. "He decided that he did not have the authority to indict a president"

DOJ practice of not indicting a sitting prez. He DID leave a lot of info so congress would have the ammunition to indict the prez. Yeah he passed the buck but also passed a lot of info. Same as Watergate. I think that's where he got his marching orders from..
At least thats what I get from listening to Rachel's program...YMMV
m

[H2O Man]

43. Correct.

This thread highlights what problems in understanding not only "what" Mr. Mueller did, but equally important "why" he did it, result from a lack of understanding of how the system works.

[shockey80]

47. The problem is the system did not work.

[H2O Man]

74. Yes and no.

A system can only produce what it is made of. As Malcolm X used to say, hens do not lay goose eggs. If one is familiar with the system -- from the sum-total of the instructions from Rosenstein, as well as the difficulties that both Whitaker and then Barr posed, I think it is safe to say that Mr. Mueller did the best job possible under the circumstances. I note two important factors: he preserved the best evidence for future prosecutors on obstruction, and laid out a virtual road map for Congress. And he said so. His saying that upset Barr, but there was nothing that Barr could do to remove that. Again, one needs to focus on Rosenstein's third instruction to the Mueller team.

[treestar]

78. +1

[Taraman]

5. Ethical people sometimes make wrong decisions

They twist themselves in knots with their thinking; cf. Comey, Colin Powell.

[KPN]

39. Yep. Overthinking.

[Girard442]

8. Mueller was supposed to be law enforcement, not a beancounter.

If he thought the evidence pointed to the conclusion that Trump should be brought down, we were counting on him to act on that, not write a report whose main effect was to show the world what a great report writer he was.

[shockey80]

11. Exactly.

[shockey80]

12. Remember this fact: The mueller report made conspiring with our enemies legal.

Mueller saying there was no provable conspiracy is a fucking joke.

[KPN]

40. While I'm not sure I agree with the premise of your OP, that is the effect of his findings ... and

we see it going on right now already ala Giuliani-Ukraine.

[Taraman]

13. I wish Mueller had looked at the bigger ethical issues

and directly challenged the OLC "opinion" that a sitting President can't be indicted. Everything flowed from that.

[cilla4progress]

103. Yep.

It is an internal policy, not a law. Nothing to prevent it being challenged. The times call for it. I'm disappointed in Mueller.

[SunSeeker]

15. K & R

[UniteFightBack]

16. Mr Mueller played buy the rules when he should god damn well know this is a time to bend them. nt

[pnwmom]

19. You have no idea what he is doing right now, but Jerry Nadler does.

And he's convinced that Mueller will be coming to speak to the Committee.

Until we hear from Mueller himself, and until the House intelligence hears from him in closed session, no one has any idea what he's going to say when he can do so without violating his oath.

What could he be doing now? My guess is that he's finishing up the biggest part of his work: the counter-intelligence portion that was never meant to become public but is even more important than the prosecution piece. Trump is an existential threat if he's being used by the Russians EVEN IF he's not criminally culpable because of the way the law is written and because his personality disorder and general idiocy makes him so easily to manipulate.

[Clarity2]

32. Thats my feeling

Something is lurking under the surface here. Theres another investigation. Too many people got immunity, too many financial records subpoened....all for what? This report that doesnt reveal conspiracy or any financial crimes?

[Jarqui]

21. I don't think the Saving Private Ryan analogy is a good one

Captain Miller had some choices as did Mueller. But Captain Miller had two options that were likely or certain to end the risk of this soldier rejoining the fight: send two of his men back with him to turn him in as a prisoner of war or kill him on the spot. Mueller did not have a certain choice nor even a likely choice.

If Mueller chose to indict, he had to know from the March 5th adversarial meeting with Barr that Barr would stick to DoJ policy that one cannot indict a sitting President. Mueller had to sense he wasn't going to get a fair shake from Barr at that point - they argued and Barr was already on the record with his thoughts on obstruction that were not shared by Mueller. Mueller would be accusing a man of a crime or more who could not clear his name in a trial - so the GOP and others could criticize with reason on their side and that would hurt chances of impeachment succeeding.

If Mueller chose to recommend impeachment, he would be criticized by the GOP and others for overstepping his bounds and tainting the process. The decision of whether or not to impeach belongs to Congress - not the DoJ or special prosecutor. Doing this would give the GOP ammunition that Trump was being treated unfairly.

Unlike Captain Miller, Mueller did not have much choice other than to do what he did - write a report that outlined the crimes Trump committed and state he could not exonerate Trump of criminal behavior. He left the decision to impeach to Congress as it rightfully should. Under 'normal' circumstances, that would bring the matter to an end. They would impeach and remove Trump.

But we are not living in 'normal' times. Nancy Pelosi is having the same problem. She knows Trump is a crook. She knows the House would be likely to vote to impeach. But she also knows public opinion to impeach is currently not enough to overcome a corrupt, biased GOP Senate and that failure to impeach might help Trump win in 2020. The GOP and Trump are baiting Pelosi to impeach Trump right now because they know the Senate won't let it happen and it will probably backfire on the Dems 2020 chances.

So that is where we are. And we are here without the choices Captain Miller got.

[barbtries]

25. i think the jury is still out on that.

history will tell. I also think that Mueller's report is a sort of plea to congress to fulfill their constitutional duty. however you may be right. republicans are irredeemable it appears. on the third hand even if he had decided to toss the guidance and indict trump, it may have ended badly.

we just don't know yet.these are agonizing days.

[smirkymonkey]

28. Mueller is a spineless republican worm.

Fuck him.

[we can do it]

62. WTF

[Tarc]

29. I'm sur this analogy sounded better in your head

but once out in the open,

*thud*

[Nitram]

30. An excellent analogy. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[Kaleva]

53. It's a poor analogy

Bringing the German back to base was not an option. Thus the only two options available were to commit a war crime and kill the German or to let him go.

[Blue_true]

84. Also, Hanks character was killed by machine gun fire from a tank.

But you are right, better to let him go rather than do a war crime.

Mueller doing a fence sitting report is more along the lines of a mob boss helping an ambitious up and comer only for that up and comer to take out a hit on the mob boss once the up and comer has stronger power. You can bet that if Trump became dictator Trump, Mueller and Comey would be the first to "vanish".

[Nitram]

94. I'm afraid war crimes are frequently committed to save lives when there is no way to safely

and humanely secure and take care of a prisoner in a life and death battle situation. That was the point of the scene. It's not like your Dad's or your Grandfather's WWII movie where everything was always clear cut and heroic. An exception was movie the Bridge Over the River Kwai, where the British commandos shot some of their own men rather than let them be taken prisoner. by the Japanese The idea that there are rules and laws regulating wars is sometimes absurd on the actual battlefield.

[Kaleva]

97. The battle was over and no one's lives were in immediate risk.

But the thread is about the OP's use of the movie as an analogy. In my opinion, it's a flawed one. Capt. couldn't afford to lose 1 or 2 men to escort the prisoner back to Allied lines as that would jeopardize the mission. Likewise, they couldn't take the German with them. The only option Capt. Miller (Mueller) had was to commit a crime. The end result justifies the means.

[Nuggets]

33. Personally I think we're being goaded

into a pushing for a report that has nothing scandalous in it as we’re pushed to call him a straight arrow and honorable.

We have no idea what’s in that report. For all we know Mueller’s investigation is for tying up loose ends and finding other possible evidence to destroy.
That way when it’s finally given unredacted, Dems look foolish for demanding it, sure it had something. Or all will be twisted by the GOP and trump and the media will sell the rest on their news and talk shows.

They already dod that with Comey and McCabe both making big bucks through book sales to suckers and a go fund me McCabes retirement acct

[PatrickforO]

35. Nowadays if you are behind the lines, you cannot take prisoners.

I don't know how it was in WWII, but in modern conflicts, Tom would have been guilty of jeopardizing the mission by leaving the prisoner alive.

[Kaleva]

51. When did they do away with the Geneva Convention?

[PatrickforO]

66. If you are with a small group of soldiers on a mission, and you are behind enemy lines,

you cannot take prisoners. I did try and look this up but could not find any specific regulation.

However, I did take the test for the US Marines upon entry into college, and I can remember one of the questions plain as day.

You are on a ship that is on an active mission - meaning trying to do X by time Y, and you see survivors from a shipwreck floundering in the water. It would require a deviation from course to pick them up. What do you do? It was multiple choice, and the choices were to deviate from course and pick them up, then continue the mission, break radio silence to relay their coordinates, or leave them to die and continue the mission.

I think you can probably figure out what the correct answer was - I picked deviate from course and pick them up, but that was wrong.

The correct answer was leave them to die and continue the mission.

I did not end up joining the Marines.

[Kaleva]

69. That question does not apply to what the OP said

Capt. Miller an his team had the German in their possession. The sailors in your question did not have any enemy or survivors on board.

For your question to work, the survivors would have had to have been on board and the question would be to either abort the mission so they could be returned to base or to toss them overboard to drown.

[shockey80]

71. When I was in the army a Major gave us a class on the rules of war.

He told us if a 2nd LT ordered you to charge a machine gun nest and you knew it meant certain death, you must follow that order. A loud moan of disapproval came from all my fellow soldiers.

I raised my hand and said to the Major, " I would charge that machine gun nest and that dumb ass 2nd LT is coming with me. The whole room broke out laughter.

[Kaleva]

73. Another way to look at it.

If Capt. Miller and his team were walking down a road and off in the distance they saw a German out in a lake who was yelling and appeared to be drowning, Capt. Miller and his team could have kept walking and no articles of the Geneva Convention would have been violated. But had Capt. Miller and his men rescued the German and had him in their possession but then decided to throw him back into the lake to drown, that would be considered a war crime.

But as I stated in another post, Capt. Miller's mission was successful so what was done with the German is irrelevant.

[Nitram]

95. It has been the same in every war, Patrick. But American WWII movies always portrayed a heroic

and morally unambiguous war.

[Martin Eden]

37. What decision -- not indicting Trump for obstruction?

That would be contrary to longstanding Justice Dept policy, so I can't fault Mueller much for that.

However, it was obvious to 500+ former prosecutors from both sides of the aisle that anyone other than a president would be indicted for obstruction.

Mueller's non-decision was to remain neutral on obstruction, when the facts clearly called for language more in line with the letter signed by all those former prosecutors.

[yaesu]

44. That is a good comparison

I think Mueller was torn between duty & fear of the fascist party that he was a part of.

[mazzarro]

46. I have always believed that being a reThuglican

Is the primary reason for him to play it safe. He left everything in the gray area to allow the possibility of multiple interpretations and hence no decision on guilt.

[shockey80]

48. I must add this, Mueller was not alone in this tragic mistake.

The guy who wrote the new rules(I forget his name) for the special council needs to go back to the drawing board. The ending has a big flaw in it.

[Kaleva]

49. Bringing the German back to base was not an option

By losing a couple of men or even one man in an effort to bring the German back to base would have jeopardized the mission. Captain Miller was allotted only so many men and had already lost Caparzo and Wade and had no men to spare for such a task. The only options left to Capt. Miller then was either to commit a war crime and kill the German or to let him go.

[StarfishSaver]

50. I remember when people were up in arms because they were SO sure that Mueller had "cleared" Trump

only to find out that's not REALLY what happened.

We don't know the full story on the Mueller Report yet. It's still playing out.

[MineralMan]

54. This has not fully played out yet.

We do not yet know how it will end, so it is fruitless to make assumptions.

We will learn more as time passes.

[shockey80]

58. This is true, but how will Mueller fix the damage that has been done.

Will he throw Barr under the bus? Will he blame the system? Will he admit he should have done things differently? I have lost a lot of faith in Mueller.

When the system fails, that's when you need people to stand up and do the right thing.

[MineralMan]

60. How could I possibly answer your questions?

I have no contact with Mueller, nor do you. We do not know his exact situation at the DOJ now, nor did we know it before. He has been asked to testify. We do not know what he is thinking about that, nor do we know when and if he will resign from the DOJ.

We do not know what he will say when he does testify, either.

We will get the answers to those questions when he does testify in the House. That may not occur until he submits his resignation. Once he does, he will lose access to all DOJ materials, which he is probably trying to avoid. However, he may be barred from testifying while still employed there.

We do not know anything about the internal discussions at the DOJ, nor about his plans. Your insistence that he do what you think is best immediately is based on no information, unless you have more access than you are telling us about. So, it is premature to judge him before you have heard from him.

Your insistence is also unproductive, since you have no authority in the matter at all. Neither do I. So, we have no choice but to wait. That's what I'm doing, rather than injecting myself into the argument based on no information.

[shockey80]

67. I was not asking you to answer the questions.

I was simply saying how was Mueller going to answer for the decisions he made. He has to either agree with Barr or call him a liar. If he does testify, one way or another the shit will hit the fan.

[MineralMan]

68. We won't know until he speaks.

Until then, none of us have any idea.

[shockey80]

70. I agree.

[Kaleva]

63. Considering that the mission was a success, letting the German go was of no consequence.

[Nitram]

96. I'm afraid you have a very idealistic and romantic notion of war.

[Kaleva]

98. How so? Acceptable loses were incurred in completing the mission.

[pbmus]

65. We have not read the unredacted report...

And I am not sure we ever will....

So this whole thread is just bullshit....

[treestar]

77. He thinks it is not his place

In fact he is investigating, not even the prosecutor. He didn't indict anyone, the prosecutor that he passed the information on did.

When it is the POTUS, he thinks the POTUS can't be indicted, only impeached. So he is to give the information to the House. Not sure if he did that properly, but that's what they did in the Watergate era.

[StarfishSaver]

88. He also didn't recommend Trump be indicted for state crimes, either

Because he knows DOJ doesn't have the authority to do that and he wasn't going to recommend for or against actions that weren't within DOJ's authority. It wasn't his mandate or his responsibility to make recommendations that couldn't be carried out.

But there are plenty of laypeople herewho are convinced they understand law, policy, practice and procedure better than Robert Mueller, so what are you gonna do?

[hughee99]

89. If Mueller wasn't sure they had a case, would you feel better if he said

No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges?

[albacore]

90. NOT the important part of the post...

But, in the movie "Saving Private Ryan" The SS soldier that killed Mellish is not the same German soldier ("Steamboat Willie&quot set free by Captain Miller earlier on. The German that kills Mellish is a Waffen-SS officer. A comparison of the two German soldiers does show some similarities, but they are two separate characters.

[Kaleva]

93. Steamboat Willie was the German who mortally wounded Capt. Miller

Steamboat Willie was executed by Upham after he and other German's surrendered.

[cilla4progress]

101. I

agree.