Rep Liu got Mueller to say it
https://twitter.com/pbump/status/1154042744702029824?s=20
Also the MSM noticed. Bump is a Washington Post reporter.
The point is that this implies that Mueller thinks Trump was guilty and that he would have a reasonable chance of convincing a jury that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of Trump’s guilt.
The other answer was “that was a sufficient reason to not indict Trump which doesn’t imply that it was a necessary condition. As written in the report I don’t think it is fair to discuss the question of
update: in the afternoon, Mueller took it back
When he appeared before the Intelligence Committee in the afternoon, Mueller clarified this exchange, noting that it was not solely because of the Office of Legal Counsel opinion that he did not charge Trump with a crime. Instead, he said, “we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
This is inconsistent with his exchange with Liu. The key word is “the” in “the reason”. Liu asserted that there was only one reason and Mueller agreed. But in any case, the bottom line is that he took it back.
And Mueller in his opening statement for Intelligence just clarified that what Liu got “was not the correct way” to refer to it. It was his last line in his opening statement. He made it a point noting this line of questioning from Liu specifically so…
Mueller will just not call what”s in his mouth “sh*t.
For me, so far the most problematic point was brought out by the ranking Repub in the the Judiciary hearing that collusion and conspiracy are considered one in the same under the law and not finding evidence of conspiracy means no collusion either. This after first asking if in the public domain and use of the words is there a difference between collusion and conspiracy. Mueller first answered yes then realized the problem when his own words were read back to him.
Mueller or someone on his team should have remembered that bit in the report. In fact, they should have not put it in there in the way they did. I don’t know, but I hope someone rehabilitated that question and answer.
Muller? Can we at least spell his name right?
Now I happen to think this little debate is a bit of a side show. Did Trump obstruct justice? Of course he did in so many ways. These facts are uncontested. The only issue now is to what to do about it. Impeachment is what the Founding Fathers would say.
PGL, sure, next time my left eye decides not to mess with my right eye.
Sorry to offend.
Obstruction of an imaginary crime doesn’t sound like a felony to me.
cesqy:
Welcome to Angry Bear. First time commenters immediately go to moderation to weed out spam, spammers, and advertising. To your point, that Mueller is taking the high road and not indicting Trump and his merry band of liars does not mean a crime was not committed. Trump did what he is being accused of by the multitudes and what is implied in the Mueller report. Thank you for your comment though.
With any luck, today’s hearing educated the probable majority of voters who didn’t really know what was in the Mueller report what in fact was there..
Jack:
We can always hope so Jack. Mueller looked tired . . .
Cesqy. By your logic obstruction of justice isn’t proven if it isn’t proven there was an underlying crime. That interpretation makes no sense, because if it were valid, then there would be no reason for Congress to declare obstruction of justice to be a crime. The only rational thing to do would be to declare that obstruction of the investigation is an aggravating factor to be considered when deciding on the sentence for the crime.
An interpretation of law such that the law makes no sense is suspect. When interpreting the law, one has to attempt to consider the intent of legislators.
But also, there is very strong evidence that other crimes were committed. Most has resulted only in indictments not convictions, because the criminals are in Russia, can’t be arrested, and won’t come over to present a defence at trial.
You can argue that there is no proof that Trump committed felonies other than obstruction of justice, but you must understand that it is a crime to obstruct an investigation of someone else. According to sworn testimony, Trump attempted to force Mueller to consider only the future not 2016. That is to not have an investigation but rather a policy developement discussion. If Lewandowski isn’t lying, Trump obstructed the investigation of Russians.
Basically the debate is odd. The proof that Trump is a criminal has long been public. No one contests it really. Rather Republicans argue that the President is above the law.
well, the Border is a crime, and it wouldn’t take much of a lawyer to prove it in court. and making it the case for impeachment would be dead easy: all it would take would be a sufficient number of congress people in both houses to decide it was a “high crime.”
meanwhile i don’t like “obstruction of justice as a crime.” would lying to the SS about jews in the basement be a crime?
would lying to the special prosecutor about having sex with the president be a crime?
once upon a time people knew the fifth amendment was about not torturing people (threat of jail?) to violate their conscience (fear of hell?) but we are beyond all that now.
not that Trump has a conscience, but still, twisting law to catch the bad guys puts us in danger of having twisted it to catch good guys. i think it is sufficient to show that Trump lied about his collusion without calling it a “crime.”
Well if somebody gets banged on over mispelling Mueller, might as well point out it is Lieu – which is shown directly in the material embedded in the post in ALL CAPS.
A problem with trying to nail Trump was the “throw it on the wall and see if it sticks” nature of Volume II. That would have been perfectly fine for a truly confidential report to Barr, but if you really are writing a public report, better to put some thinking in about that. Mueller expected the report to essentially be a public one because Barr told Congress he would treat it as such to the extent he could.
For example, the “directed McGahn to fire Mueller” should have been left out. As obstruction, it has such a major problem that Mueller and his team know perfectly well they would never gain a conviction on this basis had they been allowed to charge it. It hinges on impossible to reconcile views of Trump and McGahn. At the beginning, McGahn advises Trump that getting Mueller removed over personal conflicts is something for his personal attorney to work on. But the only possible basis that Trump could direct anyone to fire Mueller is using his authority as President. If that is the case to be argued, then McGahn was in fact the President’s attorney here. Two options: Trump the man venting impotently to McGahn his work colleague or Trump the President getting legal counsel from his attorney and accepting it. Either loses for certain in court and the special counsel knows that. I have frequently contended that the OLC policy was actually bad for Trump because otherwise the special counsel would have to step up to the plate. As a reference, Deputy AG Rosenstein is a vastly experienced prosecutor and was praised for months as a pillar of integrity and he found the same thing as the archdemon Barr about everything in Volume II.
Eric
i got lost in the details of your argument. your fault. you make the same mistake you say the Dems do.
you hate Trumo so much (stay with me) that you see every little crime of his as a reason to put him in jail. unfortunately the people won’t follow you.
it looks like impeaching Clinton because he “lied” about sex. It’s not the sort of crime anyone gives a damn about unless you hate Clinton.
On the other hand, Trumps criminality is so wide, obvious, and deep that the Dems apparently can’t see the forest for the trees.
He has dismantled the Constitution,ignoring Congress and the Courts as it suits him. He is committing torture of children at the border.
These are serious crimes (“high crimes”) that the Congress could impeach him on in a heartbeat and the people would follow.
More important, the Congress would not have to impeach, they could and should go en mass to the border and demand the jails be open to their inspection and then take the kids out IMMEDIATELY and return them to their families.
this would force a confrontation… besides ending the cruelty… that the people would not ignore.
It is stupid and weak to just talk. Some crimes require immediate intervention. Let them try clubbing a few congressmen, or shooting them, or bringing charges against them.
Meanwhile the people should try clogging some doorways in the congress and courts. Massive physical protest. It’s time to show we mean it when we talk about human rights.