It's Mueller Time

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
What does Dershowitz say:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445983-dershowitz-shame-on-robert-mueller-for-exceeding-his-role

The statement by special counsel Robert Mueller in a Wednesday press conference that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said that” is worse than the statement made by then FBI Director James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. Comey declared in a July 2016 press conference that “although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.”

Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton. Mueller, however, did even more. He went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump. By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings. Obstruction of justice is a “high crime and misdemeanor” which, under the Constitution, authorizes impeachment and removal of the president.

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.

Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor, and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.

Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.

That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence, and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment.

No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other. I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. His new book is “The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump.” You can follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh
ahhhaaahaahahaaa

Bbbbut Hillary

totally not spam though
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Mueller Puts Democrats In Tough Spot After Wednesday Speech

Wed, 05/29/2019 - 17:05

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Wednesday remarks have put new pressure on House Democrats to launch impeachment proceedings against President Trump - an option that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly warned would be a trap going into the 2020 election due to the fact that the GOP-held Senate would "vindicate" Trump even if the House impeached.



Mueller, who officially resigned from the DOJ to return to private life - said that he wouldn't appear before Congress to discuss the findings from the Justice Department's multi-year, $25 million investigations into the 2016 election.

"I hope and expect that this will be the only time I will speak to you about this matter," Mueller told reporters in Washington, adding "the report is my testimony" and "I would not provide information beyond that which is already public."

Of note, Mueller said that he didn't question Attorney General William Barr's handling and release of the Special Counsel's report, contradicting statements by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and turncoat Republican Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) - the latter of whom said Barr "deliberately misrepresented key aspects."
View attachment 4341877

To impeach, or not to impeach

By specifically pointing out that the special counsel didn't levy charges at Trump due to longstanding DOJ policy not to prosecute a sitting president, Mueller effectively laid out a path to impeachment for Democrats to follow.

"It wasn't lack of evidence. It was DOJ policy" tweeted Rep. Val Demings (R-FL).

View attachment 4341878

Mueller's refusal to testify also puts House Democrats in a tough spot. With a growing number of Democratic lawmakers pushing for leadership to launch impeachment proceedings, Pelosi and House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York are now left to decide whether Mueller gave them enough ammunition to move forward without his testimony, which Pelosi said would have been useful.

View attachment 4341879

Rep. Eric Swalwell told CNN that "Seeing is believing...hearing Bob Mueller raise his right hand, testify to Congress, seeing the news capture that, that would be quite illuminating for most Americans." In other words, Mueller's refusal to testify will now be blamed for robbing Democrats of their opportunity to impeach, if they choose not to move forward with that option.

View attachment 4341880

In Wednesday comments, Nadler was far more confrontational than Pelosi - saying that "All options are on the table and nothing should be ruled out" in terms of impeachment, adding "not event the president of the United States is above the law."

Staging a press conference Wednesday afternoon in New York, Nadler was similarly vague, sidestepping questions about whether he will compel Mueller’s testimony with a congressional subpoena.

Mr. Mueller told us a lot of what we need to hear today,” Nadler said.

Before Mueller’s remarks, at least 37 House Democrats were on record backing the launch of an impeachment inquiry into Trump. Afterward, Reps. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) and Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) added their names to the list, though most Democratic lawmakers responded by holding firm to Pelosi’s favored approach of continuing with investigations without making the leap to impeachment. -The Hill

"We must remain committed to aggressively investigating the president’s wrongdoing and we will not rest until the American people have answers," insisted Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA), vice chairwoman of the Democratic Caucus - who apparently presumes guilt until proven innocent.

So Democrats are left with a special counsel who won't testify, and who just gave the left plenty of ammunition to impeach since Mueller implied that Trump may have committed crimes. And if they do launch impeachment proceedings, they might reach the Senate just in time for Trump to be vindicated in the court of public opinion.
39 House Democrats for and 196 against. The motion to move for impeachment is denied.
 

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Mueller not wanting to testify publicly before congress is amusing. How dense is he? Both sides want to question him and rightly so.
 

shimbob

Well-Known Member
Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn’t exist. So now the Dems and their partner, the Fake News Media,.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2019

Did... Did he just admit that Russia helped him?
 

Herb & Suds

Well-Known Member
Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn’t exist. So now the Dems and their partner, the Fake News Media,.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2019

Did... Did he just admit that Russia helped him?
He did ...then he deleted it LOLOL
 

Herb & Suds

Well-Known Member
So the latest Mueller distraction is Donnie slow rolling tax increases on us, in the guise of tariffs on Mexico
Bull shit
He is just trying to change the news cycle of Mueller
I say more Mueller
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
So the latest Mueller distraction is Donnie slow rolling tax increases on us, in the guise of tariffs on Mexico
Bull shit
He is just trying to change the news cycle of Mueller
I say more Mueller
the tariffs ultimately effect the consumer, which is why the price of groceries has noticeably increased- this was told to us a year ago- to be prepared.

the tax cut came from us and most people i talk to say their tax burden increased by $1k.

don't make any large purchases and tighten your belt until this is over when Trumpy and his shit policies are reversed (hopefully).
 
Last edited:

Aussieaceae

Well-Known Member
Hillary Clinton must work for FOX news now, lol. :dunce:

Heading - Voicemail shows Trump lawyer asking Flynn's for a "heads up" during Mueller probe.

I can see his excuse now "I didn't instruct my lawyer to say that, it has nothing to do with me."
"No obstruction, no collusion, witch hunt!"

Get this guy the fuck out of office already America. :wall:
 

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Hillary Clinton must work for FOX news now, lol. :dunce:

Heading - Voicemail shows Trump lawyer asking Flynn's for a "heads up" during Mueller probe.

I can see his excuse now "I didn't instruct my lawyer to say that, it has nothing to do with me."
"No obstruction, no collusion, witch hunt!"

Get this guy the fuck out of office already America. :wall:
In light of all documents being turned over to FBI with no assertion of presidential privilege, and given that no collusion or conspiracy was found, how outraged by Trump ‘s obstruction of a non-crime should we be?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
In light of all documents being turned over to FBI with no assertion of presidential privilege, and given that no collusion or conspiracy was found, how outraged by Trump ‘s obstruction of a non-crime should we be?
Trump was named as an unindicted co conspirator in a crime for which his personal attorney now sits in federal prison

Are you still trying to peddle this “no underlying crimes, no collusion!” lie?

Do you think you have convinced even one person of this lie?
 

Aussieaceae

Well-Known Member
In light of all documents being turned over to FBI with no assertion of presidential privilege, and given that no collusion or conspiracy was found, how outraged by Trump ‘s obstruction of a non-crime should we be?
Yep, not suspicious at all, completely "legal and cool" - Trump.

My question to you is, why do you think asking for a "heads up", or in other words share insider information about an on going case is ok?

Why is using this "heads up" to potentially thwart an ongoing investigation not a serious issue to you?

Why is making a suggestion for Flynn to break his confidentiality agreement, to potentially help obstruct the Special Counsel making a case not a serious issue to you?

How is this not a crime? Ignorance isn't a valid excuse in court.

Trump's word against Flynn's. Who you reckon leaked the voicemail transcript?

:roll:
 
Top