Mueller Statement

[Brian4Liberty]

Video to come.

My summary of Mueller statement:

- Russians interfered in US election! Russians hacked the Democrats and Hillary, and gave the information to Wikileaks. Also non-government Russians trolled social media pretending to be Americans (shocking! Fakes and trolls on the internet! )

- Sittng President could not be charged, so that was never an option. He did mention that “other processes would be used against a sitting President”. Open door to impeachment.

- Mueller isn’t going to say anything else on the subject, except what is in the report. Basically he was telling Congress and media, don’t even bother trying to get me to testify.

—————

Seems that Mueller had several goals with today’s statement...

- Make accusations about the Russians, thus justifying his investigation.
- Implicate Wikileaks and by extension, Assange.
- Give ammo to those who want impeachment.
- Ask Congress not to subpoena him to testify or attend a hearing.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Spin is on. CNN already saying that because Trump was not explicitly cleared, then Trump definitely committed crimes.

“We have not charged Trump with robbing a 7/11, but we can’t say for sure that he has never robbed a 7/11”.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0SJ6wiIDHg

 

[Dary]

Mueller says that he can't say that Trump didn't commit a crime without there being a resolution based on a court trial.


Then on the other hand he says that if he had found evidence that trump didn't commit a crime, then he would have brought that evidence forward.


So he's saying that it would require a trial in order to determine guilt but no trial is needed in order to determine innocence.


That's a contradiction.


He couldn't even do his fracking job.

 

[PAF]

Mueller says that he can't say that Trump didn't commit a crime without there being a resolution based on a court trial.


Then on the other hand he says that if he had found evidence that trump didn't commit a crime, then he would have brought that evidence forward.


So he's saying that it would require a trial in order to determine guilt but no trial is needed in order to determine innocence.


That's a contradiction.


He couldn't even do his fracking job.

We have much more important things to worry about than this. Let Justin, Rand, Tom, et al, do what they need to do... it is up to us to continue to teach the young generation about true liberty.

Only when the hearts and minds change to embrace and practice liberty will it ever have a chance.

 

[donnay]

I would also like to know when Mueller came to all these conclusions. I am sure it was way before the midterm elections.

 

[Dary]

We have much more important things to worry about than this.

That's true.

But it doesn't mean that this isn't an important subject and isn't well worth discussing.

 

[Dary]

I would also like to know when Mueller came to all these conclusions. I am sure it was way before the midterm elections.

He says that he won't answer questions that aren't already answered in the report.

If he doesn't answer your question, then he should be held in contempt too.

 

[TheTexan]

Also non-government Russians trolled social media pretending to be Americans

[MENTION=20609]heavenlyboy34[/MENTION]

 

[ATruepatriot]

We have much more important things to worry about than this. Let Justin, Rand, Tom, et al, do what they need to do... it is up to us to continue to teach the young generation about true liberty.

Only when the hearts and minds change to embrace and practice liberty will it ever have a chance.

First there will be a need for universal self responsibility. This is the true challenge, until then humans are going to take the path of least resistance. We have two generations now who like to be taken care of rather than do it for themselves.

 

[nikcers]

I find it hard to believe that the Russians had anything to do with the election other than the fact that the democrats paid them to work on their platform because they couldn't beat Trump fairly.

 

[Zippyjuan]

"If Trump was cleared, we would have said so."

 

[nikcers]

"If Trump was cleared, we would have said so."

Isn't that a contradictory statement after already saying that there was no collusion and no obstruction? Or is he just saying that they have no way of proving it, but they know its true?

 

[Zippyjuan]

Isn't that a contradictory statement after already saying that there was no collusion and no obstruction? Or is he just saying that they have no way of proving it, but they know its true?

Turmp claimed no obstruction- Mueller did not say that. He said he was not allowed to charge the President but was careful to note that this did not mean he found the President was not potentially chargeable. The actual quote:

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” he noted. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019...-public-statement-on-his-russia-probe-1346420

He stressed that he was not the venue to look farther into that (saying rules prohibited them from issuing any charges, even in secret, against a sitting president)- implying that another venue (Congress) should.

“The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” said Mueller, who did not take questions.

 

[nikcers]

Turmp claimed no obstruction- Mueller did not say that. He said he was not allowed to charge the President but was careful to note that this did not mean he found the President was not potentially chargeable. The actual quote:

no his original statement zippy he said that they could not find any obstruction. I can't find one of my left socks that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I figured that meant he could not charge because he could not prove it.

 

[goldenequity]

 

[Zippyjuan]

no his original statement zippy he said that they could not find any obstruction. I can't find one of my left socks that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I figured that meant he could not charge because he could not prove it.

Barr claimed they found no obstruction. That was contradicted by the summary in the Mueller report- which he repeated in his statement today that if Trump was clear, they would have said so. He did say that Trump did not collude with Russia but that Russia interfered with the election in many ways.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

"If Trump was cleared, we would have said so."

You put greater trust in words of Mueller than conclusions from Mueller Report drawn by Deputy AG Rosenstein and AG Barr (both of whom were MAGA appointed)?

Barr: "The report recounts ten episodes involving the president and discusses legal theories for connecting those activities," Barr said. "After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other department lawyers,the deputy attorney general and I concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not subject to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bar...transparency-consistent-law/story?id=62466298

Republican lawmakers led by Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus one of President Trump’s top allies in Congress, have drafted eight articles of impeachment against Rosenstein. The articles make a series of charges against Rosenstein and question his credibility, reputation and fitness to serve.
Rosenstein defiant as impeachment talk rises

 

[goldenequity]

 

[Zippyjuan]

You put greater trust in words of Mueller than conclusions from Mueller Report drawn by Deputy AG Rosenstein and AG Barr (both of whom were MAGA appointed)?

Barr: "The report recounts ten episodes involving the president and discusses legal theories for connecting those activities," Barr said. "After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other department lawyers,the deputy attorney general and I concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not subject to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bar...transparency-consistent-law/story?id=62466298

Mueller was quoting his own report.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/

Mueller emphasized, however, that his analysis of the evidence did not clear the president of obstruction. Said Mueller: “f 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, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

Who should we go by? The Mueller Report? Or Mueller? Especially when they both say the exact same thing.

The spin- meisters are very busy on this one today.