The Mueller Report

[Mountain Man]

It's been observed here and elsewhere that if Democrats institute impeachment proceedings, it's rather more likely to hurt than help them - which is why San Fran Nan has been trying to avoid doing so, in spite of her back benchers' vociferous support for doing just that.

This thinking is based on what happened to Bill Clinton who coasted to victory in his second election even after the Republican House impeached him, but you have to remember, the media had a love affair with Slick Willy second only to the love affair they had with Obama. Trump, of course, is not going to enjoy the same glowing kid-glove treatment.

[One Bad Pig]

This thinking is based on what happened to Bill Clinton who coasted to victory in his second election even after the Republican House impeached him, but you have to remember, the media had a love affair with Slick Willy second only to the love affair they had with Obama. Trump, of course, is not going to enjoy the same glowing kid-glove treatment.

In both cases, however, the electorate does not especially want impeachment proceedings. You and I both know that the Senate is exceedingly unlikely to convict Trump of anything, whatever the House does. Obvious political grandstanding would be obvious, even to the average uninformed voter depending on the MSM for their take.

[oxmixmudd]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...g-impeachment/

He is not 'doing it for a party'. He is doing it because Donald Trump tried to obstruct his investigation.

Two things are now clear.

(1) Mueller did not indict Donald Trump because he was not allowed to do so. The song and dance that if there had been evidence he would have at least recommended indictment is not reality. Mueller did not address the issue of indictment because he was not allowed to do so - end of story. It had nothing to do with a lack of evidence.

(2) The evidence is clear, Donald Trump tried to obstruct the investigation. And had he not had immunity from indictment or prosecution due to his occupying the office of president he would have been indicted. There is no other possible conclusion based on Mueller's statements today. When Mueller made comments about the Congress being able to pursue the matter further, he was in fact saying the report speaks for itself - Trump tried to obstruct. But Congress is the only entity with the legal authority to act - and it is their responsibility to do so - not his.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

This thinking is based on what happened to Bill Clinton who coasted to victory in his second election even after the Republican House impeached him, but you have to remember, the media had a love affair with Slick Willy second only to the love affair they had with Obama. Trump, of course, is not going to enjoy the same glowing kid-glove treatment.

Clinton was impeached in his second term, not the first. His first term was 1993-1997, and he was impeached in 1998 during his second term from 1997-2001.

[Cow Poke]

... His approval rating is steady around 40% which includes his core supporters of whom not much will ever change their minds.

President Trump Job Approval

2019-05-29_20-41-21.jpg

Trump Approval: YouGov 44% | Rasmussen 47% | RCP Avg 42.4% | 2020 Polls


The above might be considered argument by weblink if I didn't add a comment about it. It's amazing how frequently you can be so wrong.

[Mountain Man]

He is not 'doing it for a party'. He is doing it because Donald Trump tried to obstruct his investigation.

Two things are now clear.

(1) Mueller did not indict Donald Trump because he was not allowed to do so. The song and dance that if there had been evidence he would have at least recommended indictment is not reality. Mueller did not address the issue of indictment because he was not allowed to do so - end of story. It had nothing to do with a lack of evidence.

(2) The evidence is clear, Donald Trump tried to obstruct the investigation. And had he not had immunity from indictment or prosecution due to his occupying the office of president he would have been indicted. There is no other possible conclusion based on Mueller's statements today. When Mueller made comments about the Congress being able to pursue the matter further, he was in fact saying the report speaks for itself - Trump tried to obstruct. But Congress is the only entity with the legal authority to act - and it is their responsibility to do so - not his.


Jim

If Mueller was confidence fhat Trump had committed a crime, you can be damn sure he would have said so loudly and clearly rather than doing this legal Kabuki dance.

[oxmixmudd]

He is not 'doing it for a party'. He is doing it because Donald Trump tried to obstruct his investigation.

Two things are now clear.

(1) Mueller did not indict Donald Trump because he was not allowed to do so. The song and dance that if there had been evidence he would have at least recommended indictment is not reality. Mueller did not address the issue of indictment because he was not allowed to do so - end of story. It had nothing to do with a lack of evidence.

(2) The evidence is clear, Donald Trump tried to obstruct the investigation. And had he not had immunity from indictment or prosecution due to his occupying the office of president he would have been indicted. There is no other possible conclusion based on Mueller's statements today. When Mueller made comments about the Congress being able to pursue the matter further, he was in fact saying the report speaks for itself - Trump tried to obstruct. But Congress is the only entity with the legal authority to act - and it is their responsibility to do so - not his.


Jim

To follow up in simpler terms:

Mueller wants the report to 'speak for itself'. IOW, the evidence for obstruction is so obvious a 12 year old should be able to figure it out.

Mueller tried but 'could not clear him'. IOW - Trump has no alibi, no mitigating circumstance, no valid alternate explanation of the facts.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

If Mueller was confidence fhat Trump had committed a crime, you can be damn sure he would have said so loudly and clearly rather than doing this legal Kabuki dance.

His report speaks for itself. But he just made it clear today. The reason you can't get that has nothing to do with the clarity of the words written or spoken.


Jim

[Tassman]

If Mueller was confidence fhat Trump had committed a crime, you can be damn sure he would have said so loudly and clearly .

On the contrary, what Mueller said "loudly and clearly" was that: "he did not determine that Trumpif we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crimehttps://www.politico.com/story/2019/...sponse-1346882

In short, Trump may well have committed a crime(s). This will be for Congress to decide

[firstfloor]

[seer]

His report speaks for itself. But he just made it clear today. The reason you can't get that has nothing to do with the clarity of the words written or spoken.


Jim

Jim, Ken Starr's report said Clinton was guilty on 11 counts - why didn't Muller say that Trump was guilty of obstruction, or that there were grounds for impeachment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_...or_impeachment

[Mountain Man]

On the contrary, what Mueller said "loudly and clearly" was that: "he did not determine that Trumpif we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crimehttps://www.politico.com/story/2019/...sponse-1346882

In short, Trump may well have committed a crime(s). This will be for Congress to decide

As we've repeatedly explained to you fascists, that's not how our justice system works. Prosecutors don't exonerate because everyone is presumed innocent unless it is proven otherwise, and if someone was never charged with a crime, as was the case with Trump, then there's nothing to be exonerated from. Dirty Cop Mueller has it completely backwards. It was his job to present clear evidence if he believed a crime was committed, not submit a wishy-washy report with no firm conclusions and then turn legal precedent in its head by vaguely suggesting that the defendant might be guilty anyway.

[Mountain Man]

Right. First question:

What laws did Mueller explicitly say Trump was guilty of violating, and what was the specific evidence for each charge?

[Mountain Man]

His report speaks for itself. But he just made it clear today. The reason you can't get that has nothing to do with the clarity of the words written or spoken.

Jim

What's clear is that the dirty cop never described a single crime committed by the President, so whether or not the President could have been indicted is a red herring, because there was never a prosecutable case in the first place. For Mueller to fail to explicitly describe a single violation of the law and then turn around and suggest that a defendant should be presumed guilty until cleared by the prosecutor is such a miscarriage of justice that any right-thinking person should be outraged by the very idea of it.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, Ken Starr's report said Clinton was guilty on 11 counts - why didn't Muller say that Trump was guilty of obstruction, or that there were grounds for impeachment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_...or_impeachment

I would not know the full answer to that question. However, these are very different people. If we look at the speculation trying to interpret Muller's lack of a recommendation for indictment and his own comments about it yesterday, it is clear he did not believe a Starr like recommendation is what he was tasked to do, and that attempts to characterize that missing recommendation as exhoneration were completely and utterly wrong. It is also clear he is expecting us to take at face value the obvious nature of Trumps attempts at obstruction on their own merits without explicit commentary from himself. That is, he expects congress to do its job and is not inclined to do it for them, or to be their fall guy if they screw up.

Jim