"If we had confidence the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[Recursion]

Holy shit

[herding cats]

1. That's the red hot takeaway.

Damn, I'm shocked.

[onlyadream]

19. Yep and..

it seemed to me he threw it over to Congress, but making clear that he would not testify, it's all in the report. I think it's clear.

[LiberalLovinLug]

89. That's the barest of barest minimums he could have done.

Bob is trying to walk the line. This statement is pretty well what we already knew. He won't go further. He clearly does NOT want to go down in history as the Republican that took down a fellow Republican President. No one wants the Mueller investigation to be miles back in the rear view mirror more than Mueller.

[Chin music]

2. Thank god.

Please be the end to this awful saga known as the trump years.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. But....Trump said, "Exoneration!"

Clearly he is exonerated, then, right......

[DownriverDem]

43. Why he said it

trump just wants to confuse his brain dead supporters. trump throws out crap all the time to divert attention from his own misdeeds.

[spanone]

4. In other words...the president DID commit a crime.

[TruckFump]

5. That's what I am hearing.

Holy shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tinrobot]

35. That's ultimately up to a jury, but anyone else would have at least been indicted.

Whether someone actually committed a crime is decided in court, not by the prosecutors.

But most prosecutors don't indict unless they're certain they can convict.

[ginnyinWI]

76. It make so much more of an impact when he says it v.s. writing it. nt

[demmiblue]

6. ...

Link to tweet

[Recursion]

14. That's actually more direct than I thought Mueller would be

He's sticking his neck out here, beyond his orders. Marines don't do that without a damned good reason.

[onlyadream]

23. He threw it out there and then resigned.

Duck and cover, lol. Congress NEEDS to start impeachment hearings.

[DownriverDem]

44. Now

he can testify as a private citizen.

[shanny]

60. Now he can be subpoenaed

and tRump could not stop it (although he would try).

[True Blue American]

61. Closed the investigation

Resigning today! This is my last word, Congress, do your job!

[shanti]

83. I like how he

just resigned, without anyone (Chump) knowing about it first. Can't take away his pension now!

[True Blue American]

84. I never thought of that

But Mueller gave little notice he was speaking, or resigning!

[Stuart G]

31. Yes, that is it...What was said above.."...the president probably did a crime." Mueller's intent.

[DallasNE]

51. The Clarity Of That Comment

Is confirmed by the Dow.

[ooky]

7. "Total Exoneration!"

Bullshit!

[malaise]

8. The most important line of his statement

That's the headline

[TruckFump]

9. He is now adding that he was bound by the DOJ

opinion that asshole could not be charged while in office.

IMO, he is burning tRump's ass.

[malaise]

10. Correct

Impeach or lock him up when he's kicked out

[TruckFump]

13. I am so stunned..

..I am shaking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BumRushDaShow]

16. THIS is the key point

His argument is that since his "office" was created by DOJ then it must follow DOJ rules. Period. I.e., if he had the authority (which he doesn't), it would be a whole different ballgame.

This is why some revisions really need to go forward on the expired 1978 Ethics in Government Act - PDF (which has been attempted) to remedy the old "Independent Counsel" provision and allow more independence, when necessary, without the issues that came up with that law during Iran-Contra & Whitewater.

[Hortensis]

53. Right. "The rules" governing him did not allow

indictment of a sitting president. Beyond "the rules," principles of fairness do not allow accusation when trial will not ensue and allow a defendant to answer and perhaps be able to clear himself of the charges. Therefore they declined to say whether they believe the president committed a crime.

But I'm sure they all have their own, private opinions. We need to fix this. In a democracy, no one can be above or immune from the law.

[DallasNE]

45. That Also Points Out

The problem with the DOJ guideline that a sitting President cannot be indicted, effectively placing them above the law. Does anyone believe that the elevated VP would not pardon the former President? That is exactly what Ford did with Nixon. The pardon power needs to be removed when it applies to the President and Vice President for crimes committed against the state in their official capacity.

[uponit7771]

52. +1, this is opposite of what Barr said IIRC

[Recursion]

11. Yep

He's not leaving much doubt: they found a crime, the rules they were under said they cannot prosecute the President.

[kpete]

12. Exactly

.

[yaesu]

15. In other words, nothing new. We have already known that was his belief, what I wasn't sure is how

much he looooooves Barr, & now we know, LOTS!

[DallasNE]

47. Barr Was His Boss Under Bush 41 When Mueller Worked In The DOJ

And they have been friends ever since. Still, his statement crushes Barr's claims in his 4 page letter summary.

Now Mueller needs to testify to Congress in a public setting to clear up other matters.

[Stuart G]

17. K and R...This is an amazing statement.

[TruckFump]

20. I was expecting TOTAL DISAPPOINTMENT, but...

I am sitting here, realizing that Mueller just burned tRump's fat ass.

[Stuart G]

27. I agree...I suspect that there "wasn't enough evidence" is what Mueller is saying.

So he says no evidence to indict...but Trump will need to lie some more on this. And he will.

The way Mueller put it is important in my opinion. A door open to impeach.

[Recursion]

32. No no no. Read the speech again

This was not insufficient evidence. They had sufficient evidence for a crime they could not predicate, because DoJ rules forbid predicating a criminal charge against a sitting President.

He's left absolutely zero room for doubt here: They found evidence of criminality by the President, and the rules they operated under did not let them charge it.

[Stuart G]

36. OK...I agree with you..There was sufficient evidence for a crime! Rules prohibited charging Trump.

Thank you for clarification..

[EveHammond13]

71. and the criminal standard is not the impeachment standard

[tymorial]

75. No. Mueller cannot accuse without an indictment. And he cant indict

The fact that the report never stated Trump's innocence is indicative of Trump's guilt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. How will trump spin that?

[sop]

80. No Collusion!, No Obstruction!..."Case Closed!"

Trump already tweeted the case is closed. Time to move on, folks, nothing more to see here.

[gratuitous]

21. And the obvious question that should be posed to Mueller

"Sir, you claimed that your investigation is complete, you're resigning as the special counsel, and returning to private life. But your report also said that you did not have confidence that the President did not commit a crime. Was that due to a lack of evidence that might be turned up by further investigation, or were you stonewalled by the administration, or was the evidence you developed complete but not conclusive? What evidence would have cemented your conclusion one way or the other?"

[Recursion]

25. He put it all in the statement

His office cannot predicate a crime against the President, because of DoJ rules, but his office found evidence of a crime that obstructed its investigation. That they are by rules unable to predicate.

Seriously: this is actually much more direct than I expected Mueller to be. This is absolutely astounding.

[calimary]

40. It all underscores how by-the-book Robert Mueller operates.

Evidently that’s been his pattern and the prevailing attitude that’s built his professional reputation.

[sop]

85. We seem to be forgetting the multiple referrals resulting from the Mueller Report

"Prosecutors from outside the special counsel’s office, including the U.S. attorney’s offices in New York, Virginia and Washington, D.C., are all pursuing cases that have spun off from the Mueller investigation.

"State investigators in New York and Maryland have ongoing Trump-related investigations. And in Congress, the House and Senate intelligence and other committees are actively looking into Trump’s finances, potential Russia-Trump ties and other matters."

https://www.voanews.com/a/spinoff-trump-cases-will-continue-long-after-mueller-report/4844958.html

We'll learn the results of these investigations before long, I hope. Mueller's report is just the beginning, not the end of the process.

[Beringia]

22. I think he was saying our hands were tied, but yours aren't

Also a big red flag about Russian interference in election.

[humbled_opinion]

24. means absolutely nothing

If House Democrats do not launch impeachment proceedings. In other words Democrats not supporting impeachment are saying the exact same thing. Terrible precedent for our Democracy and believe me Democrats will be blamed for not acting.

[bdamomma]

26. K&R

[humbled_opinion]

28. Mueller clearly states

The President committed a crime, House Democrats need to prosecute it and impeach him. That is exactly how I heard it.

[Recursion]

30. He basically said that in as many words

They cannot by DoJ rules predicate a criminal charge against the sitting President (FWIW, I agree, they cannot).

They found evidence of a crime they cannot predicate, that significantly obstructed their investigation.

If they had found the President had not committed a crime, they would have said so.

Frankly this is more direct than I expected Mueller to be.

[greatauntoftriplets]

29. He then tossed the ball to Congress.

[Grins]

33. "Qui tacet consentire"

[smirkymonkey]

34. K&R

[calimary]

37. BOOM-badda-BOOM-BOOM!!!

[humbled_opinion]

38. Dear Madam Speaker

Time for action or resign your position.

Sincerely,

Concerned Americans.

[Politicub]

41. Dear humbled opinion

Let the speaker do her job strategically.

Sincerely,

Politically-effective Americans

[Red Mountain]

93. Dear Speaker Pelosi,

Please be at least as aggressive in enforcing our cultural norms as Mitch is at tearing them to shreds.

And effective.

Please and thank you.

[humbled_opinion]

95. Yeah because being

level headed and moderate worked out real well in 2016. If not now, When? If not Dump, than who ? Inaction has the effective result of enabling. Mark my words it doesn't matter who the Democrat nominee is if they are elected the right will start the impeachment drum from day one, their priority will be vindication of their messiah at all costs that is why this new investigation by the AG is their 2020 political play put out enough noise to obfuscate from Rumps crimes and with no impeachment proceedings many apolitical Americans will think there is no evidence to impeach and it is all political posturing from the left, that is a losing message for our side in 2020 no matter how you dice it.

[Politicub]

96. It's not a question of moderation. You are promoting a false choice.

There is a case being made by very smart people in congress. Every day there are hearings to collect evidence to indict people in Trump's administration who are engaging in crimes and peddling in lies. A wheelbarrow of more evidence will be coming from the office of the special counsel.

This work is important. I don't understand the mentality of dismissing it out of hand and jumping to conclusions as you have in your post. Perhaps the petty criticisms of democrats comes from being willfully misinformed about the overwhelming volume of hearings about all aspects of this administration. So much has come to light in the few short months since the democrats regained power in the house. I can't even keep up with it all.

"Inaction has the effective result of enabling."

There is a lot of action going on. You just choose not to see it. If people want to stay misinformed, that's not my problem.

We can't mess this up. Impeachment is coming. The drums are getting louder daily. Try to listen and do something constructive rather than cast aspersions about the people who are out best hope to reign in this president.

They have one chance. One.

Ready.Fire.Aim. is a tactical approach; it's a seductive thought but it's not strategic. People put on the witness stand must be made to twist in the wind. They need to be hoisted by their own petards, so to speak, and be asked questions that they are not expecting. No mere mortal can run an effective hearing without gathering evidence and building an airtight case beforehand. And those who try, lose.

And building a case in this day and age requires a media strategy, too. A media blitz is happening as well. Are you paying attention? None of this is easy. Pelosi is staying on top of it all and using a lifetime of political experience and fact to continue pressing forward.

"...many apolitical Americans will think there is no evidence to impeach and it is all political posturing from the left, that is a losing message for our side in 2020 no matter how you dice it."

Indeed. That is what is being addressed as we speak. And I would say a losing message is perpetual criticism of democrats by people who should have our party's back; it has the effect of demoralizing people instead of attracting them.

Saying someone has committed a crime is worthless. Proving they committed a crime is difficult and takes care. Winning in the court of public opinion when an election for president is on the line -- and all that comes with it -- is more complexity than I can comprehend.

[humbled_opinion]

97. I respect your Opinion

But I tend to agree more with experts in this area. We do what we do or don't do at our own peril.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/politics/allan-lichtman-donald-trump-2020/index.html

[Magoo48]

46. Agreed

[Politicub]

39. Wow...

[calimary]

42. CNN's Gloria Borger sums it up, what Mueller's newest message is:

My hands were tied. But yours are not.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

50. You are very astute to post that. She nailed it. . . . nt

[whttevrr]

48. It Bears Repeating

"If we had confidence the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[Bernardo de La Paz]

49. Yup. Clear as day. Read Mueller's last bit again and again:

And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interference in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you.

[whttevrr]

56. and...

"If we had confidence the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

~Mueller

[DallasNE]

65. That's Lawyerly But Still Clear

Conspiracy requires proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The lower standard for impeachment could well be established on conspiring with a foreign official. And isn't that what "attention of every American" means in this context?

[Hoyt]

54. Report said same thing and even Barr's summary stated same. Unfortunately, still no Impeachment.

I hope Mueller saying it AGAIN on TV changes things, but I'm not sure it will.

[shanny]

66. "Unfortunately, still no Impeachment."

You could give it an hour or two, don't you think?

[Hoyt]

67. Gave it over 2 months -- Barr's letter 3/24/19, and Redacted Report April 17, 2019 said same thing.

Still no Impeachment, and it is questionable whether Pelosi even has votes.

I'm not happy about that, it's just a fact and I think it is time we move on to the election (unless something new arises).

[shanny]

72. lol

"unless something new arises..." now, that's funny

btw "impeach now or move on to the election" is a false choice. Public oversight hearings on all manner of topics that have already arisen--including these--is the way to have your cake and eat it too. Let rump go into election season with MONTHS of revelations--which you know are out there--dragging him down. Our people in the legislature can handle one side of the encirclement, our candidates can handle the other.

[Hoyt]

74. None of the revelations before the election -- he's a buffoon, racist, liar, cad, etc. -- or after

Last edited Wed May 29, 2019, 06:49 PM - Edit history (1)

the election have "dragged trump down," and the polls show the American electorate is pretty much against Impeachment after we watched trump obstruct numerous times, call on Russians for help, read Mueller's report and even Barr summary saying they cannot "exonerate" trump, etc.

I appreciate your optimism, but there is a reason Democrats have not started formal Impeachment, and one of them is Pelosi and other leaders know the votes aren't there.

[shanny]

92. true

but being a liar/con artist/tax cheat/not-a-billionaire might make a dent. There's way more kettles of fish to cook up and cans of worms to open. The economy, despite being juiced with deficit spending is beginning to stagger. If it does more than that, tRump will take a hit--especially if he is shown to be profiting. We won't reach the dead-enders; we don't need to.

and btw, as I have said a zillion times (granted not to you) the place to start is with oversight hearings, not impeachment hearings. Oversight hearings on Watergate ran for a year and were held in public. Only after the case had been made, in full public view, did impeachment hearings begin. Public sentiment was in favor by that time and so were the votes.

It would be stupid to jump into the deep end right off the bat...and since Mueller's investigation has been held close, without leaks, and then the report withheld, we are essentially at square one.

We can get there though. Even with all the roadblocks tRump and co. will throw up. In fact, they could slow down the process enough to have the whole thing come to a boil spring/summer 2020.... which could enable impeachment but preclude a trial....

[FBaggins]

69. At least one poster has read the report

I can't understand all the energy on this thread implying that something had changed.

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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.

[Hoyt]

70. I've been watching MSNBC and all of the "experts" are acting like Mueller said something new today.

I want trump removed as much as anyone, maybe more, but the facts are Mueller's report has been out over a month and Barr said pretty much the same thing as Mueller in the 4 page summary released 3/24/2019.

Maybe after Mueller's comments today, people will go, "Dang, I did not know what Mueller said today, Impeach." But, if people have been paying attention, we've known what Mueller said today since 3/24/2019 and mid-April with release of Redacted Report.

[ewagner]

55. that wasn't the best part...

the best statement was that there WAS A CONCERTED AND SYSTEMATIC EFFORT TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION.

IOW...there were crimes committed but Mueller was prohibited from charging them under a stupid and probably unconstitutional DOJ policy.

CASE CLOSED MY ASS!!!!

[Taraman]

57. It changes nothing

Unfortunately. We're still screwed by all these Catch-22s.

Trump obstructs justice and breaks the law EVERY DAY and cannot be held accountable, as long as his extended mob family in the Senate supports him. He continues to stack the Judicial branch as quickly as possible.

The United States is being run by a crime family in league with an international crime syndicate and nothing can be done. I don't think the Framers in their most terrible dreams foresaw this.

[mtngirl47]

58. CALL Nancy Pelosi TODAY!!

202-225-4965

Light up the phones!!!!

[superpatriotman]

62. Here. Let me edit your OP:

for right wing consumption:

"...the President did not commit a crime..."

[Taraman]

63. It all depends on this OLC opinion(!)

that a sitting President cannot be indicted, that it's unconstitutional. That's the Gordian Knot. How would the Supreme Court rule on this?

[Kurt V.]

64. the moral of story is the president, any president is indeed above the law.

as long as he/she had 34 members of the senate of the same party, which is always.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

68. The dotard is still screaming that he was exonerated none the less.

[mcar]

73. K&R!

[kentuck]

77. In other werds...

If they were confident that he was innocent, they would have declared him innocent.

They did not.

[SayItLoud]

78. Someone with knowledge please explain how a Senate trial will take place...we already know

the verdict (they will not impeach him) but please explain trial and how it will work?

[FBaggins]

86. However they want

The Senate does have rules for impeachment and we can look to the Clinton trial as an example...

BUT - they can do pretty much whatever they want. The standing Senate rules even allow them to create a new committee hold the trial in secret and make a recommendation. There's no mention of committee membership including senators from both parties.

[George II]

79. That was the line that struck me the most. In other words, "he committed a crime."

[dajoki]

81. The obstruction hindered the investigation...

We need to see all the evidence to understand just how much conspiracy was ongoing.

[Joe941]

82. Impeach NOW!

[neohippie]

87. The House Impeachment inquiry doesn't have to lead to a Senate Trial to be effective

The starting of the Impeachment inquiry would put legal weight behind all document requests and subpoenas for testimony. This would stop a lot of the stonewalling and end the argument that the house investigations serve no legal purpose

Just that alone would help get the truth and a lot more information out in the public eye and would go a long way in helping to shape the outcome of the next election

[True Blue American]

88. Just get the facts out there!

Justin Amish got a standing ovation several times and one middle aged woman said she never knew the facts ntil she heard Justin.

The real news of Fox, plus Judge Napolitano speaking out loud and clear.

[SunSeeker]

90. Plus, it would give the House Committee a right to subpoena Mueller's grand jury info/testimony.

Last edited Wed May 29, 2019, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Regular House oversight hearings like we are doing now don't have a right to get grand jury info. But formal impeachment investigation hearings are considered judiciary in nature, and so fall under the exception to the rule that bars release of grand jury info.

We really need that info. We simply cannot recreate the 2 years of work that went into getting that info, even if we had the time, which we don't.

[unblock]

91. sounds like a campaign slogan to me

[hughee99]

94. Not the exoneration Trump claimed, but it sounds like he's saying

he can't prove Trump didn't commit a crime. I don't think this phrase is as valuable as you think.

[malaise]

98. That was the most important line for people to hear

without a doubt