Mueller to make statement on Russia probe

37j1490iyb131.jpg
 
I’d like to remind you this isn’t the first time Trump has started a fishing expedition, do you remember his voter fraud commission?
And let's not forget when he supposedly sent people to Hawaii to investigate Obama's birth certificate. I remember his being interviewed and saying that his people found "amazing" things over there and it would only be a matter of time before it all came out. He was subsequently interviewed by John King of CNN who asked for a followup of that "investigation" and Trump prevaricated. When King pressed the issue, Trump said that's why King's show had poor ratings.

I hope Trump does serious time. (Godspeed to SDNY et al.)
 
@FF

wjk said:
Then Mueller should have stated that Trump committed a crime(s) but can't be indicted because of constitutional restraints...


See Ken Starr's investigation of Clinton.

WeToddDid2 said:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing. And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially -- it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge...


Legal principles should still apply. Guilt wasn't proven. If it had been, Mueller could have stated so. In my opinion, it's unfair to imply that when guilt can't be proven, it can't be disproven either. That concept makes everyone potentially guilty of whatever anyone wants to accuse them of.

The constitution calls for a different approach regarding the sitting president, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about an investigator stating if there's guilt or not. To use the unfairness argument is b.s. It was unfair to state it the way he did, IMO. I agree with Alan Dershowitz' opinion, paragraph 4 in particular:



"Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax TV: Mueller Crossed Line"

Robert Mueller was out of line to imply President Donald Trump might have obstructed justice during the two-year Russia investigation, attorney Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV.

Minutes after Mueller
addressed the media and the American public Wednesday morning to wrap up his Russia probe, Dershowitz joined Newsmax TV host John Bachman for his immediate thoughts.

"I think it was improper for Mueller to say that if there had been evidence that the president hadn't committed a crime, we would have said so. That sounds to me very much like what [former FBI director James] Comey said about Hillary Clinton and was so criticized," Dershowitz said.

"I don't think that was in his place to say that. He could just as easily have said, if there were evidence that [Trump] had committed a crime, we would have said so. But the implication was that maybe he committed a crime, but there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove it.

"I think he went beyond the authority of a prosecutor and committed the same error that we all condemned Comey for committing in relation to Hillary Clinton."

Dershowitz argued Mueller, who announced in his Wednesday morning remarks he is resigning as special counsel and returning to private life because his investigation into Russian election interference is over, gave a "different twist" on his report than Attorney General William Barr.












I think most people would agree that Alan Dershowitz is more of an attention whore than he is an advocate.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=0x...j0i22i30j33i160j33i21j33i22i29i30.A2XYNHCMTQ8
 
Last edited:
I think most people will agree that you will call Dershowitz names and disparage him because you don't like his valid points.

Furthermore, why you anyone listen to anything that you have to say? You don't even possess elementary comprehension skills?
You mean the guy who defended "innocents" like Claus von Bulow and O.J. Simpson? You mean that guy? That's the guy from whom you're drawing your comfort of Trump's "innocence?"

As for comprehension skills, elementary or otherwise, don't talk about stuff you don't understand.
 
Last edited:
You mean the guy who defended "innocents" like Claus von Bulow and O.J. Simpson? You mean that guy? That's the guy from whom you're drawing your comfort of Trump's "innocence?"

As for comprehension skills, elementary or otherwise, don't talk about stuff you don't understand.

You see, Trump is innocent like OJ was innocent
 
You see, Trump is innocent like OJ was innocent
The problem is you guys had him guilty of treason and collusion before an investigation ever started, before he ever took office. After 2 1/2 years of that drum beat, it's now impossible for the left to accept anything different regardless of evidence or lack thereof.
 
Mark Levin: Republicans should 'force' Robert Mueller to testify
By Anna Hopkins | Fox News

'Life, Liberty and Levin' host Mark Levin says the American people should be furious about the full scale propaganda effort to take down President Trump after the Russia probe.

After Robert Mueller's brief statement on Wednesday atter the conclusion of the Russia investigation, "Life, Liberty, and Levin" host Mark Levin argued that the special counsel should be ordered to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On Wednesday, Mueller said that his report would serve as his testimony in regard to the conclusions of his investigation, which did not find that President Trump could be exonerated of obstruction of justice, but could not be indicted either. During an interview with "Fox & Friends" on Friday morning, Levin called on Sen. Lindsey Graham to bring Mueller before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify further.

"The Republicans will have to force him to testify," Levin said.

"Lindsey... call [Mueller] in front of your committee. Subpoena him. Wherever he is retiring to, drag him back.

RUDY GIULIANI: I 'DARE' MUELLER TO TESTIFY AND EXPLAIN WHEN HE FOUND THERE WAS NO COLLUSION

"You don't get to drop bombshells like that, throw Molotov cocktails like that, undermine a president, then go off into the sunset."


Further labeling Mueller a "complete fraud," Levin questioned the special counsel's statement that it was "not an option" for his commitment to pursue an indictment against President Trump due to limitations of the Department of Justice.

"Can you show me where in your report you say you had probable cause to indict a sitting president but because of those memos you couldn't indict him?" Levin asked of Mueller.
 
"Can you show me where in your report you say you had probable cause to indict a sitting president but because of those memos you couldn't indict him?" Levin asked of Mueller.

Indeed.

And both Barr and Rosenstein state that in private conversations/meetings where others were present as well, that he clearly affirmed that the OLC rule was not a factor in his reasoning because he was not able to reach a finding of probably cause in the first place.

Fine, let's get em all in there before Congress and we will work it out on the playground. I am not worried about Barr showing up or being able to hold his own. Get all the others in there too who were part of the phone conversation where Mueller complained about the press mis-interpreting his report or running to far and fast before it was fully released. Barr confirmed to Congress that a transcript of that meeting exists. Let's go. I would not produce it though unless Mueller shows up too. You want a rumble on the playground, you dont send your sister to say that you can't make it. Don't worry about Barr showing up.
 
Back
Top