Robert Mueller, Trump's Best Friend

The Great Zaganza

Maledictorian
The Great Zaganza
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
29,295
For two years, Trump had no better defender than Robert Mueller. And he still is shielding Trump from any consequences, political or otherwise.


In his Report, and in his statement, Mueller made clear that early on he made the decision that charging Trump was not an option, and that only through Impeachment a sitting President could be removed.

The MOMENT he made that decision would have been the time to inform Congress that if they are considering Impeachment, they would have to do their own inquiry.
By taking over the legal aspects of the Russian interference, Mueller made it next to impossible for others to do their own investigation without interfering in his. That would have been ok if he had provided his work product as it developed, so that Congress could decide to join in or do their own thing at any point.
But after blocking the investigation for two years he is coming out with a "Yeah, I was never going to do what everyone expected me to do" statement he is de facto robbing Congress of its ability to do an Impeachment in a timely manner to the offense.
What is the point of the Power of Impeachment when it takes more than four years to do it methodically instead of for purely political reasons?

Mueller is kidding himself if he thinks he did the right thing.

Screw you, Bob Mueller.
 
You realise that Mueller's report is pretty quick. Starr's took 4 years!

As to your claims, they are bogus. It was well known that the DoJ could not indict a sitting President, it has been known that this was the likely case since Nixon.

Mueller did exactly what he could do and what the office allowed him to do, to gather the evidence, determine if the evidence cleared the President, then pass it all to Congress with the advice that they use it as evidence to progress it all further.

This is exactly the same thing that the Starr Report did.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
You realise that Mueller's report is pretty quick. Starr's took 4 years!

As to your claims, they are bogus. It was well known that the DoJ could not indict a sitting President, it has been known that this was the likely case since Nixon.

Mueller did exactly what he could do and what the office allowed him to do, to gather the evidence, determine if the evidence cleared the President, then pass it all to Congress with the advice that they use it as evidence to progress it all further.

This is exactly the same thing that the Starr Report did.
Click to expand...

No.
Starr handed Congress a 'Roadmap' to Impeachment, and publicly supported his work product.
At the very, very least, Mueller should have let the Grand Jury decide to hand over their material to Congress.

Mueller thinks he brought the office of Special Council back to where it belonged.
But in fact, he has made it obsolete.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
No.
Starr handed Congress a 'Roadmap' to Impeachment, and publicly supported his work product.
At the very, very least, Mueller should have let the Grand Jury decide to hand over their material to Congress.

Mueller thinks he brought the office of Special Council back to where it belonged.
But in fact, he has made it obsolete.
Click to expand...

Starr was an independent counsel Mueller was a special counsel working within the confines of the DOJ. The differences between their communications are not all due to the decisions the two men made. They had different levels of freedom to act and communicate due to the difference in those two roles.
 
What I'm not at all sure on is why everyone seemed to agree that the Justice Department guideline, policy, whatever of not indicting a sitting president has the force of established judicial precedent when basically it's an opinion, and one that will tend to protect the president because he can hire or fire the AG, so there might be a bit of a conflict there.

I'm not sure of the difference between Starr and Mueller's remit but I wasn't aware there was a key distinction - independent counsel vs. special counsel under the auspices of the AG's office. How did that come about?

Oddly maybe I kind of come out on Trump's side on this - he can push the needle toward obstruction of justice but really, the AG is his appointee; he has at least de facto power to give the AG orders and probably de juris as well, although I'm not clear on the underlying constitutional clause or interpretation. Of course if it's to stop an investigation one can argue that is a criminal act, but essentially it sounds as if the president is insulated from actual federal charges while in office. IOW, he is above federal law. At least that is Mueller's understanding and I believe he is sincere in that regard.
 
Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.
 
Minoosh said:
What I'm not at all sure on is why everyone seemed to agree that the Justice Department guideline, policy, whatever of not indicting a sitting president has the force of established judicial precedent when basically it's an opinion, and one that will tend to protect the president because he can hire or fire the AG, so there might be a bit of a conflict there.
Click to expand...
Not everyone agrees but it has been the Justice Departments policy for 40+ years, so absent a federal prosecutor willing to take a case to the supreme court despite having been fired, practically the issue is settled.
I'm not sure of the difference between Starr and Mueller's remit but I wasn't aware there was a key distinction - independent counsel vs. special counsel under the auspices of the AG's office. How did that come about?
Click to expand...
From what I gather, after the the Starr report the legislation that created the independent council was allowed to expire. The key difference being that the Independent Council was independent and could bring charges independent from the Justice department. As I understand it.
Oddly maybe I kind of come out on Trump's side on this - he can push the needle toward obstruction of justice but really, the AG is his appointee; he has at least de facto power to give the AG orders and probably de juris as well, although I'm not clear on the underlying constitutional clause or interpretation. Of course if it's to stop an investigation one can argue that is a criminal act, but essentially it sounds as if the president is insulated from actual federal charges while in office. IOW, he is above federal law. At least that is Mueller's understanding and I believe he is sincere in that regard.
Click to expand...

I think this is accurate. As to whether the President can be indicted by the justice department, that seems to be debated sincerely among legal scholars and there appears to be folks of both left and right opinions on either side of that debate. I think it was Gorsuch(maybe kavanaugh) that argued previously in some op ed or speech that congress should pass a law suspending the statute of limitations for the POTUS on account of this in order to clarify that ultimately presidents aren't above the law.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.
Click to expand...

It's not actually Congress's job to impeach every arguably impeachable offense.

Impeachment is an option they have, which they may choose if and when they see fit. Most of Congress's job, in fact, consists of duties which they can fulfill just as much by omission as by commission. You can elect someone with the hope or expectation that they will impeach. You can even vote them out if they don't. But that's about it.

As far as I can tell, US legislators don't actually have a "job" per se. They have a role, and a bunch of optional duties. They don't have to show up for votes. They don't have to sponsor bills or sit on committees. They don't have to do anything, really, besides get elected and draw a paycheck.

Your Representative is maybe not doing the job you want them to do, of urging impeachment, but impeaching the president isn't actually a job they have to do or are supposed to be doing. It's an optional activity they can legitimately opt out of.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.
Click to expand...
True, its not Mueller's fault that the republicans have the majority in the senate. And its also not his fault that they are a bunch of unprincipled scumbags.

But, he should have recognized the political landscape at the time (that the Senate would never convict Trump regardless of the evidence that was provided) and written his report appropriately.

The first line in the report should have been "Trump is guilty". The last line should have been "He's still guilty". Each page should have a big watermark that says "guilty as hell". Granted, the senate will still never vote to remove him from office, but at least people will have a clearer idea of where they really stand on "law and order". By not giving a simple, definitive statement on his guilt, he is giving cover to Trump and his supporters, to claim "See? The report never said I was guilty, so I must be innocent!".
 
theprestige said:
It's not actually Congress's job to impeach every arguably impeachable offense.

Impeachment is an option they have, which they may choose if and when they see fit. Most of Congress's job, in fact, consists of duties which they can fulfill just as much by omission as by commission. You can elect someone with the hope or expectation that they will impeach. You can even vote them out if they don't. But that's about it.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to bob the thread?
 
Segnosaur said:
Are you trying to bob the thread?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not, and I hope you don't take it that way.

I'm trying to explain that "impeach on the advice of DOJ special counsel" is not actually a required duty of Congress. It is an option they have. Dismissing that option with little or no consideration is just as much doing the job as taking that option would be.

"Not doing their job" in this context means simply, "not doing what Beelzebuddy wants".

Beelzebuddy seems to be trying to set up something like, "special counsel has laid out the case for impeachment, and now Congress has to impeach".

I disagree with that. I think that special counsel has laid out the case for impeachment, and now Congress doesn't have to do anything.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.
Click to expand...

This.
If Mueller is a friend of Trump,then Donnie does not need any enemies.
I think people are angry and are aiming their fire on the wrong people.
They also have a mistaken idea of what Mueller was impowered to do.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Mueller did what everyone expected him to do: he delivered evidence of an impeachable offense to Congress. He didn't need to make a roadmap to impeachment, he provided a list of impeachable actions. It isn't his fault that Congress is unwilling to do their damned jobs and act on that information.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Segnosaur said:
True, its not Mueller's fault that the republicans have the majority in the senate. And its also not his fault that they are a bunch of unprincipled scumbags.

But, he should have recognized the political landscape at the time (that the Senate would never convict Trump regardless of the evidence that was provided) and written his report appropriately.

The first line in the report should have been "Trump is guilty". The last line should have been "He's still guilty". Each page should have a big watermark that says "guilty as hell". Granted, the senate will still never vote to remove him from office, but at least people will have a clearer idea of where they really stand on "law and order". By not giving a simple, definitive statement on his guilt, he is giving cover to Trump and his supporters, to claim "See? The report never said I was guilty, so I must be innocent!".
Click to expand...

That was not the job Mueller was empowered to do. His job was to present the facts in a report, not decide on Trump's innocence or guilty. You just don't understand how the system works.
 
theprestige said:
Absolutely not, and I hope you don't take it that way.

I'm trying to explain that "impeach on the advice of DOJ special counsel" is not actually a required duty of Congress. It is an option they have. Dismissing that option with little or no consideration is just as much doing the job as taking that option would be.

"Not doing their job" in this context means simply, "not doing what Beelzebuddy wants".

Beelzebuddy seems to be trying to set up something like, "special counsel has laid out the case for impeachment, and now Congress has to impeach".

I disagree with that. I think that special counsel has laid out the case for impeachment, and now Congress doesn't have to do anything.
Click to expand...

But the issue is not "the DoJ's advice." The issue is Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into a foreign government interfering in the election. Why is it the right wingers in this thread don't think that is incredibly serious?

Congress would be shirking its balance of powers duty if it just lets that slide.
 
dudalb said:
That was not the job Mueller was empowered to do. His job was to present the facts in a report, not decide on Trump's innocence or guilty. You just don't understand how the system works.
Click to expand...
Or maybe he decided and was ethically bound not to express his opinion. If you're indicted, the prosecutor says you're guilty but you have the opportunity to defend yourself in court. Mueller wasn't going to say he's guilty in a report, no matter what he thought, because there was no indictment and hence no mechanism for Trump to deny the allegations (i.e., a trial). Which put the matter in Congress' hands. Arguably it puts the matter in the AG's hands, but the AG has the same problem, only more so because it's his boss.

Don't know if that convinces anyone, but it's my understanding.
 
Minoosh said:
Or maybe he decided and was ethically bound not to express his opinion. If you're indicted, the prosecutor says you're guilty but you have the opportunity to defend yourself in court. Mueller wasn't going to say he's guilty in a report, no matter what he thought, because there was no indictment and hence no mechanism for Trump to deny the allegations (i.e., a trial). Which put the matter in Congress' hands. Arguably it puts the matter in the AG's hands, but the AG has the same problem, only more so because it's his boss.



Don't know if that convinces anyone, but it's my understanding.
Click to expand...

Given that Mueller is now going for the "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" play, it doesn't really convince me.
 
He wouldn’t be saying anything at all were it not from the lies being told by Trump and his AG.
 
theprestige said:
Given that Mueller is now going for the "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" play, it doesn't really convince me.
Click to expand...

It's not a case of saying it now, he said it in the report too. The only difference is that more people get to hear the sound bite on the news than bothered to actually read it in the report, and likely hearing it makes it come across more effectively than just reading it.
 
I can only assume that Mueller did something right. He's got trump saying that he's a terrible person and never trumper with some of the worst people in the world on his team while anti-trumpers are saying he's been covering for Trump for two years.
 
theprestige said:
Given that Mueller is now going for the "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" play, it doesn't really convince me.
Click to expand...



And this was Mueller's biggest failing (in the current social and political climate). He should have known that a mature, nuanced appraisal of the situation would simply be ignored by the vested interests in the GOP, and misunderstood by the no-nothing crowd in Trump's base.

He wrote a report that charitably assumed a good faith effort by the readers to understand his results, but there was essentially zero chance that Trump et al. would ever read that report in good faith.

Mueller should have been more explicit, period.
 
Horatius said:
And this was Mueller's biggest failing (in the current social and political climate). He should have known that a mature, nuanced appraisal of the situation would simply be ignored by the vested interests in the GOP, and misunderstood by the no-nothing crowd: Trump's base.

He wrote a report that charitably assumed a good faith effort by the readers to understand his results, but there was essentially zero chance that Trump et al. would ever read that report in good faith.

Mueller should have been more explicit, period.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you!!!!!
 
dudalb said:
True, its not Mueller's fault that the republicans have the majority in the senate. And its also not his fault that they are a bunch of unprincipled scumbags.

But, he should have recognized the political landscape at the time (that the Senate would never convict Trump regardless of the evidence that was provided) and written his report appropriately.

The first line in the report should have been "Trump is guilty".
Click to expand...
That was not the job Mueller was empowered to do. His job was to present the facts in a report, not decide on Trump's innocence or guilty. You just don't understand how the system works.
Click to expand...
Yes, his job was to report the facts... and the fact was, Trump was guilty.

Now, if its a case of him not wanting to use the 'G' word (guilty) and wanted to try to remain more... detached, he could have said "Trump engaged in actions that would cause him to be prosecuted if he were not president", or "clear indication of illegal activity". Not quite as clear cut as "Guilty!" but still clearer than "The report didn't clear him so you have to read between the lines to understand that he did break the law".

And besides, who would actually complain even if he did overstep the bounds of what he was expected to do and said "Guilty"? The Democrats (and I suspect the vast majority of the population) would probably welcome such a blunt statement (since that's what a lot of people were expecting anyways). Trump and his supporters would raise a fuss of course, but then they're complaining anyways, so no loss there.
 
Minoosh said:
Or maybe he decided and was ethically bound not to express his opinion. If you're indicted, the prosecutor says you're guilty but you have the opportunity to defend yourself in court. Mueller wasn't going to say he's guilty in a report, no matter what he thought, because there was no indictment and hence no mechanism for Trump to deny the allegations (i.e., a trial). Which put the matter in Congress' hands. Arguably it puts the matter in the AG's hands, but the AG has the same problem, only more so because it's his boss.

Don't know if that convinces anyone, but it's my understanding.
Click to expand...

^ This is how I see it.

Mueller was tightly constrained by policy. The most damning thing he could do under such constraint is to say he could not absolve. Anything more would be seen as an unfair "charging" where no redress could be undertaken. Even to be as 'tepid' as not absolving was probably a bold step for as buttoned-down a straight shooter as Mueller.

And it's as clear as the Constitution lays out that only Congress retains the power to charge and convict. The DoJ has utterly declined any responsibility here because of that OLC *opinion* which has become policy. Were that *policy* to be revisited and overturned (and affirmed by the SC, one presumes), the legal system then could treat the President as it (nominally) does every other US citizen.
 
The attorney general, William Barr, has said Robert Mueller “could have reached a decision” on whether Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice – an implicit criticism of Mueller’s refusal to clear Trump of criminal activity.
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/31/mueller-report-trump-latest-obstruction-william-barr

Uh, he did. Didn't he? 10 counts of same.

Oh, you wanted Mueller to actually launch proceedings against Trump, did you, Mr AG? Expressly in contradiction to your own department's policy, and the constitution (let's not forget that). So why would you want him to do that? Was it because then you could publicly call him out for overstepping your boundaries, and thus discredit the whole investigation? Naw, you wouldn't be that nasty, would you. Of COURSE not. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/31/mueller-report-trump-latest-obstruction-william-barr

Uh, he did. Didn't he? 10 counts of same.

Oh, you wanted Mueller to actually launch proceedings against Trump, did you, Mr AG? Expressly in contradiction to your own department's policy, and the constitution (let's not forget that). So why would you want him to do that? Was it because then you could publicly call him out for overstepping your boundaries, and thus discredit the whole investigation? Naw, you wouldn't be that nasty, would you. Of COURSE not. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Of course Barr is a flaming bag of crap on our doorsteps!!!!!
 
Mueller was given a very limited scope within which to work and was going to be a slave to precedent. We can argue over whether he should have gone about things the way he did, but I think he has been pretty clear on why he did them that way. The fact that he actually went after Flynn was a huge deal.

He was never going to indict a sitting president. He did, however, give Congress a pretty good case for impeachment.
 
Last edited:
I still don't get why the public is having Barr stand there and say he has made the decision that there was no obstruction.

I seemed clear from the getgo that this wasn't his job but rather a blatant attempt to shape the narrative before the report was even released.

I wish there was a public outcry about this very transparent and very blatant and very stupid maneuver, and I don't quite get why there isn't.

I think in most other civilized countries there would be.
 
Tommok said:
I wish there was a public outcry about this very transparent and very blatant and very stupid maneuver, and I don't quite get why there isn't.
Click to expand...



There is a public outcry about this. It's just confined almost entirely to the Democratic side of the body politic, and the people with the power to actually do something about it simply refuse to listen to them.


Or are you actually looking for crowds of people marching in the streets about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom