Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Cannot charge a sitting president ≠ "can't charge anyone with a crime." It appears Mueller adhered to decades-long DOJ guidance that clearly says the sitting president is not just anyone; this guidance says the president cannot be charged with a crime. Here's how this works, hypothetically:

• President Hamburglar is accused of stealing 500 cold cheeseburgers from McDonald's.
• DOJ guidelines says that President Hamburglar, by virtue of holding the office, cannot be indicted for this grand theft while he occupies the White Play Pen.
• A special counsel, Grimace, is appointed by Mayor McCheese to look into this theft. Grimace works for nearly two years in spite of President Hamburglar attempting to derail his investigation via witness intimidation, cajoling and asking members of his administration, the McNugget Buddies, to fire Special Counsel Grimace.
• Special Counsel Grimace finds that President Hamburglar likely did try to criminally obstruct his investigation. However, because the rules say that he cannot indict President Hamburglar, he publicly states that he cannot prove his innocence either. The president under investigation - a person who cannot be indicted and is effectively above the law - cannot be brought before a court in the way that a normal defendant is. However, the Happy Meal Congress has the ability to remove President Hamburglar from office outside of normal criminal proceedings.
• So, Special Counsel Grimace could not bring President Hamburglar into a courtroom to formally prove innocence or guilt because of who Hamburglar is. Is that innocence or exoneration? Would Hamburglar have been charged like any other citizen if he were not the president of McDonaldLand?

I know it's been a few years, but my goodness; imagine wanting to defend Donald Freaking Trump this slavishly. He really could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and you'd thank him for his service.

 

Robert Mueller, May 29, 2019

 

Speaking of republican senate majority leader mcconnell...

 

With all due respect, this is flat wrong when obstruction of justice has occurred. Which it has.

Obstruction of justice is fundamental to the justice system, because if it is not enforced, there is no motivation for any wrongdoer to cooperate; just commit any and all crimes where you can get away with by destroying evidence or witnesses. This is law 101.

If you're accused of tax fraud but can't be found guilty because you burned the books, you're guilty of obstruction. You might be guilty of tax fraud but we may never know because of the obstruction.

It's boggling how many of y'all want to let this guy (I mean, really: this guy?) off the hook.

 

Barr committed perjury. That's perfectly clear. One doesn't have to be a genius to see that. Any person with a modicum of intelligence, the tiniest bit of wit, can see that. Barr lied. No wonder he's trying to figure out how to get the House to back off by making a "deal" about seeing Mueller's report unredacted, a report they have every right to see, whether Barr likes it or not. By god, there's one person that should face justice and not wait for it.

Attorney General Barr should be impeached.

 

This should be the primary talking point wrt the Mueller Report by the Democrats. Trump and McConnell are putting their interests above the interest of the country. No wriggle room here.

 

Another coincidence...

Attorney General Barr gives exclusive interview to CBS

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/ent...0190529-zkfuepfolzalhayc2msxwro4bi-story.html

 

Mueller is a Republican after all.

DD

 

Don't confuse the members of The New No-Nothing Party, DD. One hundred and sixty four years after the original was formed in this country, it has returned.

 

space ghost publicizing his ignorance again,

earth to the ignorant one,

the Mueller investigations have resulted in

> 30 prosecutions,
> 4 guilty pleads (including Trump campaign chief and his National Security Advisor)
> 3 have served / serving been imprison for crimes committee
> the Dotard in Chief is the unnamed co-conspirator to the SDNY case, in which Cohen has pleaded guilty​

 

The expected trump tweetrum after Mueller's statement... and notice trump finally acknowledged russia helped him get elected...

 

LOL... trump can tell conflicting stories in the span of an hour. When you are unbound by any concerns about truth and integrity you can say and do anything...

 

Mueller didn't state a single new thing. He was simply repeating a few main points from his report. And yet it seems the media, common folks, and politicians treat it as if it's new and a few politicians came out with *new* stance, some calling for impeachment.

These politicians either didn't read the actual report themselves or they didn't have a strong backbone and are more opportunist (contrast to someone like Warren who came out immediately after reading the full report herself). That also speaks to the politic of this, including why Barr initial statement was so powerful to holding the dam back and succeeded in doing so (people that took Barr's version in and refuses to change is brain washed, or willfully sticking to ignorance).

The dam has been leaking since the report became public. I think it is another reason why an impeachment proceeding through the House is important. Not only to lay out the facts for all the lazy a$$ politician in Congress that didn't do their duty and read the full report themselves, but for the *i know nothing* media and public, and as importantly, to potentially expand the scope to Trump's strange financial dealings, which seems to not be within the scope of the the Mueller's investigation.

 

Its so obvious trump never read the Mueller report...

 

Dershowitz on Mueller's partisan bias in exceeding his role:

Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.​

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...hame-on-robert-mueller-for-exceeding-his-role

 

another piece on Mueller's putative partisan bias in ignoring the Clinton campaign's Russia ties:

Much has been written about Robert Mueller’s appearance before the press today, in which spoke briefly and nervously, repeating points that have already been made ad nauseam in his own report and elsewhere. Why did he do it? And why did he appear so nervous while he did it? Speculation has been rampant.

Scott posted a transcript of Mueller’s remarks earlier today. Much could be said about them, but I want to focus on just one aspect of Mueller’s characterization of his own investigation.

The key word there is “included.” What else did Mueller’s charge include? Nothing, apparently. But we actually know that there were “links” between a presidential campaign and Russians who (if they existed at all) likely were associated with Putin’s regime. The campaign was Hillary Clinton’s, and the Russians were those on whose reports Christopher Steele based his infamous dossier.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign went looking for Russians who could serve up dirt on Donald Trump. In a futile attempt to avoid illegality, the campaign told its lawyers at the Perkins Coie firm to contract with Fusion GPS, run by fervent Democrat Glenn Simpson, who in turn contracted with Christopher Steele to try to find Russians who had (or could make up) useful information on Trump. The Clinton campaign used these multiple cut-outs so it could falsely report the money it paid to Steele as “legal expenses” incurred at Perkins Coie. Maybe somewhere there is a U.S. Attorney who would like to take a look at this.

Just kidding. Christopher Steele obliged the Clinton campaign by finding several Russians who, based on the information they pretended to have, almost certainly were associated with Putin’s regime. Or maybe he didn’t find them at all; maybe he just made up all of the nonsense in the “dossier” and charged the Clinton campaign for his fantasies. Probably neither Steele nor the Clinton campaign cared one way or the other.

If we assume Steele didn’t fabricate the whole thing, then he colluded on behalf of the Clinton campaign with Russian officials or insiders who told him lies. He fed these lies back to the Clinton campaign, which, as Byron York reminds us, did its best to use these Russian fables to win the presidential election.

Here is my question. (I know it has been asked before, but it can’t be repeated too often.) If Mueller’s charge was to investigate “Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election…[including] investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign,” why didn’t he look into the possibility that the false information fed by alleged Russian insiders to an agent of the Clinton campaign was a disinformation effort by the Russian government, meant to interfere in the 2016 presidential election–an effort in which the Clinton campaign colluded?

There is strong circumstantial evidence that the Steele dossier was exactly that, while there never was any evidence at all that the Trump campaign colluded in any way with Russians. So why was Mueller’s investigation confined to the wrong campaign?

The question answers itself. Mueller’s mission was the same as Christopher Steele’s mission, and Glenn Simpson’s, and Perkins Coie’s, and Hillary Clinton’s: to destroy Donald Trump, by hook or by crook. That is the only explanation for Mueller’s seeming myopia about his own failure to look for collusion where, in all likelihood, it actually existed.​

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/robert-mueller-partisan-fraud.php

 

So the argument went from “If Mueller had wanted Trump to be indicted then he would have indicted him” (which implied that Mueller should have an opinion on Trump’s possible guilt) to “Since Mueller can’t indict Trump based on the DOJ policy, he shouldn’t have an opinion on whether he should be impeached?” Seems a little contradictory.

Keep hope alive though.