His job is to prosecute or not. He's a rat and he is going to muddy the water as much as possible to keep rabid dems such as yourself stirred up.
-
Welcome to TalkWeather! We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion. CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER -
April 2024 Weather Video of the Month Post your nominations now!
Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread
- Thread starter Bama Ravens
- Start date
- Status
His job is to prosecute or not. He's a rat and he is going to muddy the water as much as possible to keep rabid dems such as yourself stirred up.
Why won't Mueller testify before Congress ?
gangstonc
Member
Umm, exonerate means call him innocent..
Note that Mueller said he would have exonerated him if he could have. Now it's time for Congress to decide.
gangstonc
Member
He answered this in the presser as well. He believes he has answered all of the questions within his report, and he believes testifying would turn in to a political spectacle, which it would.
The fact is that too many Americans (such as yourself) are too lazy to read the report. They need to see the TV hearings to be informed on the subject.
Mueller's conclusions: No collusion and he chose not to make a charge of obstruction. What more needs to be said ?
gangstonc
Member
That you are exactly wrong. The report didn't cover collusion and he didn't choose not to make a charge of obstruction. You are living in a bubble of ignorance.
Arcadia
Member
The level of ignorance from both sides is astounding.
gangstonc
Member
IMO, people should not comment on the results of the Mueller report if they haven't read it. I don't care if they are an average Joe like you and me or a member of congress. I may be stupid, but at least I've put in the effort to not be ignorant. I've read the report twice and I read Mueller's statement today.
Kory
Member
Wasn’t his office there to investigate and gather evidence not to render a verdict? Then, present said evidence to Congress and let them decide. I didn’t think Mueller was where the buck stopped...
gangstonc
Member
I agree with you 100%.
- Moderator
- #5,431
That's the pot calling the kettle black
Kory
Member
Oh look! Comments from the peanut gallery!
Evan
Member
The Obama admin normalized abortion. It went from safe/rare under Clinton and Bush to what it is now.
“In 2001, 2002, and 2003, Obama opposed Illinois legislation that would have given legal protection to infants who survived abortion attempts. A 2002 federal version of the same legislation had passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate, with only 15 House members voting no. In 2003, only two years away from the Senate, Illinois state senator Obama stated plainly that he believed abortions should be legal in all situations, even late in a pregnancy—a position no other major presidential candidate had ever taken in their careers.”
How The Obama Presidency Normalized Abortion Extremism
The Obama administration did everything it could to transform abortion, a procedure that ends a life, into something to celebrate.thefederalist.com
Look, I don't like Obama but this is absurd. Abortion rates were much higher in the 70s, 80s, and 90s than when Obama was President.
Evan
Member
I have a question...
At today's press conference, Mueller stated the following (this is direct from the transcript on doj.gov outside of the emphasis which is mine):
"At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision."
Why didn't Mueller simply state he doesn't question Barr's good faith in the decisions he made overall vis-a-vis the report and its outcome? Any thinking person knows that Mueller's statement in the press conference was CAREFULLY parsed and went through multiple draft revisions. He didn't just pop up there on the dais and wing it like a 10th grade book report. Why would Mueller choose to use the word "that" and the singular decision instead of saying I don't question the AG's good-faith in the decisions he made?
It seems pretty clear Mueller is saying he doesn't question Barr's good-faith when it comes to releasing the report in its entirety, but that the same does not hold true for other decisions that Barr made. To me, that was far and away the most important revelation made in today's press conference.
We already knew Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction because of the OLC memo. We already knew that Mueller believed the criminal justice system couldn't accuse a President of wrongdoing. But pay attention to Mueller's precise words:
"And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."
So, does that mean that a President could be informally accused of wrong-doing outside of the judicial process? Like, say, a damning report on obstruction that lays our evidence but doesn't make a formal legal conclusion or accusation of criminal wrongdoing? Why use "formally" instead of legally?
Is anyone aware of a formal process found in the Constitution to accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing? I'm only aware of one; that process is impeachment by Congress.
I will say that I'm a little more inclined to agree with Arcadia today than I was previously. I think it's possible Mueller is taking the easy way out. Either that, or he's incredibly naive about politics, and no one is able to survive at such a high-level in DC for decades if you're an unsophisticated political novice. Mueller ostensibly wants to avoid further politicizing the process - - that's a nice wet-dream if you're an idealistic teenager. Otherwise, you know Congress is going to demand your testimony.
But there's a third potential option. Try to be above-board and avoidant of the political intrigue. Make it clear you don't want to testify. Point to your team and say we've already spoken. While all the while knowing you're going to get subpoenaed and pressed for your opinion. Mueller is shrewd. He's not politically naive. My suspicion is Mueller was signaling he doesn't want to testify if the Democrats are going to just play footsie with impeachment. He made his position clear with very parsed words for those who have followed his investigation and style. He took a shot at Barr to make it clear he disagrees with the AG' s actions. He highlighted the only Constitutional process to accuse Trump of wrongdoing. And he did so in a way that the major players involved will understand his intentions even though your average American voter will not.
This kind of duplicity and political gambit might be off-putting to many, but I think Mueller has realized playing it straight won't lead to a win. He's surreptitiously playing politics in the shadows to preserve his credibility and perception of being unbiased until he has the opportunity to let it all out in an impeachment hearing.
I don't think this was Mueller's first choice. Perhaps he held out the hope that Republicans would finally come around once his report was released. That's possibly part of what led to his disagreement with Barr about waiting so long to release info from the report after Barr's infamous "a non-summary summary letter." But, obviously, the past few weeks have disabused Mueller of the notion that the Republican Party is anything other than a cesspool of partisan Trumpism. Justin Amash's beating at the hands of his "friends" in the supposedly conservative Freedom Caucus was likely the final nail in the coffin. Mueller has to do this with the Democrats or not at all.
At today's press conference, Mueller stated the following (this is direct from the transcript on doj.gov outside of the emphasis which is mine):
"At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision."
Why didn't Mueller simply state he doesn't question Barr's good faith in the decisions he made overall vis-a-vis the report and its outcome? Any thinking person knows that Mueller's statement in the press conference was CAREFULLY parsed and went through multiple draft revisions. He didn't just pop up there on the dais and wing it like a 10th grade book report. Why would Mueller choose to use the word "that" and the singular decision instead of saying I don't question the AG's good-faith in the decisions he made?
It seems pretty clear Mueller is saying he doesn't question Barr's good-faith when it comes to releasing the report in its entirety, but that the same does not hold true for other decisions that Barr made. To me, that was far and away the most important revelation made in today's press conference.
We already knew Mueller didn't make a decision on obstruction because of the OLC memo. We already knew that Mueller believed the criminal justice system couldn't accuse a President of wrongdoing. But pay attention to Mueller's precise words:
"And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."
So, does that mean that a President could be informally accused of wrong-doing outside of the judicial process? Like, say, a damning report on obstruction that lays our evidence but doesn't make a formal legal conclusion or accusation of criminal wrongdoing? Why use "formally" instead of legally?
Is anyone aware of a formal process found in the Constitution to accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing? I'm only aware of one; that process is impeachment by Congress.
I will say that I'm a little more inclined to agree with Arcadia today than I was previously. I think it's possible Mueller is taking the easy way out. Either that, or he's incredibly naive about politics, and no one is able to survive at such a high-level in DC for decades if you're an unsophisticated political novice. Mueller ostensibly wants to avoid further politicizing the process - - that's a nice wet-dream if you're an idealistic teenager. Otherwise, you know Congress is going to demand your testimony.
But there's a third potential option. Try to be above-board and avoidant of the political intrigue. Make it clear you don't want to testify. Point to your team and say we've already spoken. While all the while knowing you're going to get subpoenaed and pressed for your opinion. Mueller is shrewd. He's not politically naive. My suspicion is Mueller was signaling he doesn't want to testify if the Democrats are going to just play footsie with impeachment. He made his position clear with very parsed words for those who have followed his investigation and style. He took a shot at Barr to make it clear he disagrees with the AG' s actions. He highlighted the only Constitutional process to accuse Trump of wrongdoing. And he did so in a way that the major players involved will understand his intentions even though your average American voter will not.
This kind of duplicity and political gambit might be off-putting to many, but I think Mueller has realized playing it straight won't lead to a win. He's surreptitiously playing politics in the shadows to preserve his credibility and perception of being unbiased until he has the opportunity to let it all out in an impeachment hearing.
I don't think this was Mueller's first choice. Perhaps he held out the hope that Republicans would finally come around once his report was released. That's possibly part of what led to his disagreement with Barr about waiting so long to release info from the report after Barr's infamous "a non-summary summary letter." But, obviously, the past few weeks have disabused Mueller of the notion that the Republican Party is anything other than a cesspool of partisan Trumpism. Justin Amash's beating at the hands of his "friends" in the supposedly conservative Freedom Caucus was likely the final nail in the coffin. Mueller has to do this with the Democrats or not at all.
Last edited:
gangstonc
Member
I don't think Mueller would think it fair to informally accuse anybody of anything. It doesn't give them the opportunity to defend themselves properly.
Nice post.
Evan
Member
I wonder if perhaps he's a former federal prosecutor because he doesn't know the difference between an Independent Counsel and a Special Counsel and the different statutes laying out their authority, jurisdiction, and reporting requirements.
Hint: Ken Starr was an Independent Counsel, so what he did of didn't do is not directly relatable to Robert Mueller's actions as Special Counsel. I know Fox New's job is to dupe the easily duped, but you don't have to make it so easy.
By the way, a quick Google search confirmed that the supposedly unbiased expert federal prosecutor in your clip supported Trump before he even announced his Presidential candidacy. Oops.
Evan
Member
I both agree and disagree with you and ghost here. In short, I'm an Evangelical, and I know that the majority of Evangelicals have made excuses for Trump and twisted themselves into pretzels to pardon his immorality, narcissism, and psychopathy. Sure, it's not ALL evangelicals, but I grew up in the Assemblies of God. These are my people. I clearly remember their reaction to Clinton's immorality and the disdain they had for his disgraceful behavior. They simply have not applied the same standards to Trump.
That's the overall point -- our country has long been wicked and full of immorality, even in the Presidency but most Evangelicals were clear to voice their disdain and condemnation of such behavior and demand better. The same has not held true for Trump. I absolutely believe it is a majority. Whether or not a majority of Evangelicals supported Trump in the election, an overwhelming majority of Evangelicals currently approve of Trump as President. It's true that Clinton's approval rating spiked after impeachment, but he had historically high approval ratings as a base, his approval ratings returned to their norm fairly quickly, and it wasn't Evangelical voters giving him the bump. That said, I do know plenty of Evangelicals that have said they were OK with Clinton in hindsight because of the economy.
So I do agree the slide towards tolerating immorality by Christians has been ongoing for a very long time. But Trump kicked that process into an overdrive and also changed the way such conduct is even looked at. It's has gone from "I don't agree with President X's immoral behaviors/scandals, but I do like the results to making EXCUSES for Trump's immorality, minimizing it, and in some cases even embracing it. There's a stark difference between tolerating someone's flaws because of the results they bring and reveling in someone's immoral behavior and justifying or excusing it. Plus, there's still the whole problem of those that still pretend that Trump is a Christian who cares about Christianity. He takes Christianity only as seriously as the vies) votes it gets him. Like most things, Trump is supportive of whatever happens to benefit him -- not because of any deeply held principals.
Kory
Member
Side note Evan, I thought you were Catholic?
Evan
Member
No sir, but I do have the utmost respect for the Catholic church, its efforts to spread the gospel and help the poor, and many other things. My wife was Catholic until she was a young teenager, and I also have family on my mother's side whom are Catholic. Always have been an an Evangelical Christian.
- Status
