mueller hearing

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

The intent to conspire with the Russians maybe not, the intent to obstruct an investigation DEFINATELY!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Definitely. NOT
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Definitely. NOT
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you must be smarter or more informed than the hundreds of formal federal prosecutors who basically agreed with Mueller, stating that if anyone BUT a sitting president would have been charged, can you please scan your legal degree and post it for proof you have those credentials🤣🤣🤣
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So you must be smarter or more informed than the hundreds of formal federal prosecutors who basically agreed with Mueller, stating that if anyone BUT a sitting president would have been charged, can you please scan your legal degree and post it for proof you have those credentials🤣🤣🤣
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was actually trying to show you how to spell definitely. (Without caps)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Spelling is so much more important than meaning, my goodness I’m thankful for the correction, what would this board be without the spelling police🤪
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

We help each other out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So you must be smarter or more informed than the hundreds of formal federal prosecutors who basically agreed with Mueller, stating that if anyone BUT a sitting president would have been charged, can you please scan your legal degree and post it for proof you have those credentials🤣🤣🤣
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

then why didn’t Mueller ( who everyone in the left was tripping over themselves to adore for two years) just indict? he said the protocol against indicting a sitting potus was not the reason he didn’t indict, he said the investigation didn’t establish that trump committed a crime. does that mean anything to you? was mueller bought off by trump?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

He couldn't indict Trump

Here's Mueller's statement:
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

That is a portion of what he said in his opening statement:
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarified that he did not intend to support Lieu’s implication that Mueller would have indicted Trump if not for the OLC opinion.

That would have meant that Mueller determined that Trump committed a crime, but could not do anything about it.

Mueller also said the President could be indicted for obstruction after he was out of office, he did not say he would or should be.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He couldn't indict Trump

Here's Mueller's statement:
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

That is a portion of what he said in his opening statement:
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarified that he did not intend to support Lieu’s implication that Mueller would have indicted Trump if not for the OLC opinion.

That would have meant that Mueller determined that Trump committed a crime, but could not do anything about it.

Mueller also said the President could be indicted for obstruction after he was out of office, he did not say he would or should be.

this is some crazy contortioneering

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That is a portion of what he said in his opening statement:
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Justice Department policy does not prevent making a determination re the President's conduct. Making a determination and indicting are not the same thing. If there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was criminal intent in Trump's actions (criminal intent would be necessary in a case where there is no underlying crime), then Mueller could have made that determination. It would be a dereliction of his duty not to make the determination if he believed it and the evidence showed it, but it would be foolish, or obviously biased, to determine he committed a crime if criminal intent could not be established. There is no doubt that Mueller would know that. That all may well be why he refused to make the determination as to whether the President committed a crime, mainly being that criminal intent would be too difficult to establish.

And the notion that he didn't make the determination on the basis of fairness is deceptive on its face. If fairness were the issue, then simply stating that there was not sufficient evidence to make that determination. Period. Case closed. The way Mueller did it was not, in any way, "fair." As Scott said, it was "crazy contortioneering."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Justice Department policy does not prevent making a determination re the President's conduct. Making a determination and indicting are not the same thing. If there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was criminal intent in Trump's actions (criminal intent would be necessary in a case where there is no underlying crime), then Mueller could have made that determination. It would be a dereliction of his duty not to make the determination if he believed it and the evidence showed it, but it would be foolish, or obviously biased, to determine he committed a crime if criminal intent could not be established. There is no doubt that Mueller would know that. That all may well be why he refused to make the determination as to whether the President committed a crime, mainly being that criminal intent would be too difficult to establish.

And the notion that he didn't make the determination on the basis of fairness is deceptive on its face. If fairness were the issue, then simply stating that there was not sufficient evidence to make that determination. Period. Case closed. The way Mueller did it was not, in any way, "fair." As Scott said, it was "crazy contortioneering."

You should be glad that the Independent Counsel Act expired or the investigation might have been as wide ranging and gone on as long as Starr's of the Clintons. Probably would have involved Stormy, Trump's finances and who knows what else.

But as far as your claim that the report failed to make a determination that Trump and his team acted improperly at best you are incorrect.

Here is a list for you:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-...d-said-or-knew

I think your argument is with the rules the Special Counsel operates under.

I assume that Rosenstein as the representative of the AG knew thru the required reporting about Mueller's teams reading of the regulations far prior to the issuance of the report.

You could ask your Representative to put forth that question, or perhaps it is one of the ones Mueller took. After the hearings, committee chairpersons give their colleagues a deadline for submitting additional questions based on the witness’s testimony and Mueller might be asked to provide a more substantive response.

The report Mueller prepared per the regulations was a confidential report and he presented it to the AG per the regulations. It was the AG's choice to release it in whole or part, if it was in the public interest. I believe Congress could also release it.

This is the interesting testimony to Congress on Wednesday, September 15, 1999 after the new regulations were issued by the Attorney General on June 30 to replace procedures which expired with the sunset that day of the Independent Counsel Act.

You can read the testimony here

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonie...l-regulations/

I expect after this the Special Counsel regulations may yet again be revised or a new law enacted.

[Got Stripers]

Perfect is all I can say and well worth the termination for the audio visual guy who pulled this off and the translation in spanish for the verbiage is 42 is a puppet.

[scottw]

^^^^ did it make you feel better?...seems a bit childish

[Liv2Fish]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

This looks like winning to you?

The dud over his left shoulder really ran things. Go back and watch his body language. He couldn't bed a poker player, that's for sure. I saw veins bulging on his forehead at one point

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by scottw

^^^^ did it make you feel better?...seems a bit childish

You mean like the juvenile insults that permeate this board, sure.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But as far as your claim that the report failed to make a determination that Trump and his team acted improperly at best you are incorrect.

I didn't make that claim. Perhaps your responding to somebody else? Or are you lying?

Here is a list for you:

After I got up to part IV, and saw there was a whole bunch more, I gave up. Didn't find it interesting or criminal up to that point. Just circumstances that could mean anything. I found particularly hilarious Trump's sarcastic public statements supposedly being evidence of conspiracy. Really? Hey, world! Listen here, I'm going to expose my conspiratorial Requests to Putin, et. al, right before your ears and eyes, so you can see what I'm up to!! Really? He's that stupid? He wouldn't make a more confidential conspiratorial request to Putin to help him out? Just blurt it out to the world for everyone to see?

You told me you don't watch my videos. I'm not going to read or look at anymore of your links, and videos, and long cut and pastes. They don't usually prove anything anyway.