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

When this is the type of proof and evidence your article has in it to support its premise, you are doing it wrong.

Really? You come here with this crap where the evidence is the author of the piece suggesting maybe 'x' happened, and probably the campaign did 'y'. That amounts to a whole of nothing. We know that multiple parts of the dossier have been verified. So the author's assumption is already off base on top of him having zero evidence to back up his suppositions.

Mueller is a Republican who kept politics out of his investigation. He ran a professional and responsible investigation.

It is embarrassing to some people now that Mueller has destroyed their statements that the report completely exonerated Trump and proved there was no collusion.

But that's no excuse for littering our political playground with this kind of crap article.

 

an argument that Mueller violated the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct:

There have already been comments on Ethics Alarms regarding Robert Mueller’s surprise public statement to, I assumed, clarify some things being muddled in the political grandstanding and media mush. Frankly, I am not certian what he thought he was doing, but my suspicions aren’t pretty. The statement was either unethical, or incoherent. Just so we are on the same page, here is the full statement. I’ll be back at the end…

{includes Mueller's full statement here}

My analysis of this will be mercifully brief.

1. Mueller said that his statement was to announce that the investigation was over. That part of the statement could have been completed in about two sentences.

2. One may conclude that the statement was also designed to deny recent reports in the news media that he had begun drawing up an indictment of President Trump, but changed his mind. Mueller is clear on that, at least: he could not indict the President, and would not, so he obviously didn’t start drafting what he could not use.

3. Mueller said that the report speaks for itself and nothing else needs to be said. Then he set out to further frame the report. He contradicted himself blatantly in this, and undermined whatever credibility he has. His credibility with me instantly fell with that statement.

4. Mueller said,

Yet earlier in the same statement, he phrased his words to sound like he was potentially accusing the President of a crime:

If Mueller says he and his team did not have confidence that the President did notcommit a crime, then by his words, that is the same as saying that he may have committed a crime, an which is what a “potential accusation of a crime” means, by my dictionary. Mueller had just said that doing what he just did is unfair.

It sure is. In fact, it’s a serious breach of prosecutor ethics. D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 states,

Not only is that what Mueller’s statement did, it appears hard to believe that this wasn’t what it was designed to do. DOJ’s formal policy manual on the duties of federal prosecutors and principles of federal prosecutions also explicitly forbid what Mueller did today:

It is not the prosecutor’s job to prove anyone innocent. Everyone is presumed innocent under the law. Yet Mueller, even after making a point of saying that indicted Russians should be presumed innocent, phrased his statement about obstruction of justice in order to suggest that the President was guilty because his team couldn’t pronounce him not guilty.

Mueller’s statement confirmed what his harshest critics had claimed, and what I had previously refused to believe. He was a politically motivated, unethical prosecutor who desperately tried to give the Democrats what the needed to impeach the President, and could not make the case. Finally, he tried to do what he could to satisfy his disappointed allies through innuendo and an unethical, extra-legal framing of his report.​

https://ethicsalarms.com/2019/05/29/robert-muellers-bizarre-and-unethical-public-statement/

 

I see the attack on Mueller has now re-ignited, nevermind that he didn't state a single new thing, and actually went out of his way to state the exact same thing that was in his own report. LOL. So predictable.

 

Keep hope alive

 

One day history majors will study trump interviews and wonder what voters were thinking... like this thread:

 

When trump's lies become so common and accepted...

 

trump lies, about everything, all the time...

 

Got to thinking and I figured out why @adoo @theimpossibles1 and @Sweet Lou 4 2 and others here act the way they do.

They must have been (and still are) perpetually at the bottom of the heirarchy in their peer group/family. This has created a powerful insecurity.

As a result, anytime they perceive someone in a group might possibly take the role of 'whipping boy' from them (bobby, now me), they launch full scale attacks to reinforce that perception. It is a classic defense mechanism.

Sadly, this mechanism requires their constant attention and energy. Unfortunately the idea is based on a belief that is false, because in normal adult society, members of a group need not feel so insecure as to create a persona that, in their mind, is somehow below them.

This defense mechanism is seen heavily in elementary and junior high, and sometimes even in high school and college among the developmentally disabled.

Again, you have my pity. Not sticking around to hear your petty responses, simply dropping knowledge on you.

Peace and love, Space Ghost

 

So you made a lengthy response about the poster but said absolutely zero about the facts they provided regarding the subject?

 

No, but see. This now powerful cretin and his damaging divisive ways are not the political problem.

The psychology of a few posters on CF who are disturbed by the known lifelong cretin: that's the REAL problem.

The problem is not the obvious problem. The problem is people who wish to openly acknowledge the obvious problem.

Am I doing this right?

 

Commodore Hat Threat Level:

ORANGE

 

This guy is so good for Trump and the Trump supporters. Propaganda and brain washing continue.

 

Except that Mueller did not look for evidences of non-crimes. He did the exact opposite and found plenty. If it turns out that he couldn't find evidences of such crimes, then he would have "confidence" to said the President didn't commit a crime.

 

Impeach him then. Lets do it. Impeach him because mueller says he is not guilty nor innocent. Lets get this stuff started. C'mon nancy. Pull the trigger. It will all be over soon.

 

The Republicans need to stand up and impeach him as well. That's the disturbing thing - they are ok with him abusing his powers and committing impeachable offenses. It's a shame they lack the spine to do what is necessary for the good of the country.

Democrats do not have the power to remove him from office.

 

Agree with this, mostly. I think in addition to their being an argument as to whether the acts were high crimes, there is likewise an argument as to whether they truly constitute obstruction. As you say 'construed as obstruction'--that indicates there would be different perspectives. But that doesn't mean that Congress (Dems) can't look at that and say its worthy of further action, to have those debates and discussions.

I don't really think debating those things in the context of should they or shouldn't they would be very fruitful. This has been about politics all along, and politics will dictate whether they proceed or not. This is the dilemma Pelosi faces. Polls show the politics don't favor proceeding, but a large section of her base is adamantly in favor of it.

I would just say the Clinton impeachment had a lot of parallels, with many Republicans at least saying it was their duty to proceed with it. And they worked against them in the following elections. Clinton was a more popular President, but I still think the analogy is worth examining

 

Write to your GOP senators and reps. Thx

 

You are right that Clinton was more popular. 60% vs 42% for Trump. That itself is a huge difference. Second, charge of lying and obstruction for a private affair vs non-private affair. I think these differences are much more significant than the similarity (partisan politic).

And FWIW, I went back and look at polling:

Should Clinton be impeached? 25% yes, 70% no.
Should investigation ends? 70% yes, 30% no.

Should Trump be impeached? 45% yes, 42% no.
Should investigation ends? 53% yes, 44% no.
(both above are prior to Mueller speaking to the public)