Quote (Skinned @ May 29 2019 12:09pm)

Wrong. I watched Mueller's announcement. No doublethink plz.

Quote (fender @ May 29 2019 12:48pm)

he specifically made it a point to address that in his short statement: the only reason, despite the overwhelming evidence he provided, detailing multiple obstruction incidents by trump, is the office of legal counsel guideline against indicting sitting presidents.
the path he suggests couldn't be any more obvious: the ball is now in congress' court to exercise their oversight role over the executive branch.

how much clearer could he be without violating his 'strictly by the book' principles?

Quote

ROBERT S. MUELLER III, the special counsel: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel’s office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

Now, I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. We are formally closing the special counsel’s office, and as well, I’m resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life. I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself. Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cybertechniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks.

The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation, where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election. These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. And that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president.

The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you.

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 wrongdoing. 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.

So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations.

The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.

Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I’ve said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it’s for that reason I will not be taking questions today, as well.

Now, before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the F.B.I. agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals who spent nearly two years with the special counsel’s office were of the highest integrity. And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

Quote (tagged4nothing @ May 29 2019 12:52pm)

mueller was acting as head prosecutor. he stated that his testimony lays within the report.
"everything" congress has to use is based on instances of "obstruction" within the report. (most of those having nothing to do with trump)

honestly, i don't care. it's going to be very difficult to impeach the president of obstruction, when the underlying charge of collusion was not found.
it's going to be impossible now that nadler is trying to link impeachment to "collusion" again.

if congress was unable to pick up impeachment charges before mueller came out today, they aren't any better off now.

Quote (Robert Mueller)

The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

Quote (Robert Mueller)

Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Quote (Robert Mueller)

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cybertechniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks.

Quote (Robert Mueller)

The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

Quote (Robert Mueller)

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation, where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election.

Quote (Robert Mueller)

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system.

Quote (Robert Mueller)

if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.

Quote (Robert Mueller)

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.

Quote (Robert Mueller)

Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.

Quote (jEevion @ May 29 2019 02:50pm)

Language is important.



Notice here he explicitly identifies Trump (campaign).



Notice here he broadly generalizes "interference" (as in, not necessarily to help *OR* undermine the Trump campaign, but interference in general).



Notice here Clinton campaign tied to WikiLeaks (Assange).



Notice here we started with: Trump campaign, moved to generalization "interference", moved to Clinton / Wikileaks etc. and now Robert Mueller uses "a presidential candidate". WHICH ONE? This can be EITHER:

i. Trump
ii. Clinton



Notice the non-specific language: "influence an election". For who? Against who?



Notice here this can *still* apply to either Trump or Clinton.



I borrow from Dinesh D'Souza:

Logical reasoning 101: From the premise that Mueller could not charge a sitting president with obstruction it does NOT follow that had Trump not been a sitting president, Mueller WOULD have charged him. Non-sequitur!



Evidence as it pertains to...? What if the obstruction/collusion finding relates to Clinton?



In other words: what you see, is what you get, and he wants nothing else to do with it at all.

If you pay close attention to how the language shifted, it explicitly allows for the possibility that there *was* collusion... but Robert was very careful not to indicate for Trump (or Hillary)... instead using "a presidential candidate" instead.

In reality, the Hillary Clinton DNC colluded with Russia to get "dirt" on Trump to influence the election in favor of Hillary, which is precisely why they had to attempt top pin Russia collusion on Trump.

Projection / scapegoating is the name of the game: blame the other side for what one is guilty of.

Projectors:
-John Brennan
-Maxime Waters
-Ilhan Omar
-Obama
-Clinton
etc.

This pathological degeneracy is rooted in the Judeo-Islamic supremacist religions which use goyim/infidels as puppets/slaves. Wealthy business owners/bankers/career politicians are given *access* to services (extremely illegal) via underground networks run by Dar-uul Islam. This involves human trafficking / sex slave cults. Taking the Islamic shahada is the only requirement. People are recruited, given access, but are later used/blackmailed to perform tasks that align with the strategic (military) interests of Islam: to install Sharia globally (one world government / NWO).

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/29/mueller-just-proved-his-entire-operation-was-a-political-hit-job-that-trampled-the-rule-of-law/

Mueller was part of the swamp, so had to be careful that the language he used allowed for Clinton to be the "beneficiary" of election meddling, instead of Trump, which is in fact what happened.

Quote (bogie160 @ May 29 2019 01:58pm)

It doesn't look like you understood it, feel free to reach out to me if you need a play by play.

Quote (jEevion @ 29 May 2019 22:50)

Language is important.



Notice here he explicitly identifies Trump (campaign).



Notice here he broadly generalizes "interference" (as in, not necessarily to help *OR* undermine the Trump campaign, but interference in general).



Notice here Clinton campaign tied to WikiLeaks (Assange).



Notice here we started with: Trump campaign, moved to generalization "interference", moved to Clinton / Wikileaks etc. and now Robert Mueller uses "a presidential candidate". WHICH ONE? This can be EITHER:

i. Trump
ii. Clinton



Notice the non-specific language: "influence an election". For who? Against who?



Notice here this can *still* apply to either Trump or Clinton.



I borrow from Dinesh D'Souza:

Logical reasoning 101: From the premise that Mueller could not charge a sitting president with obstruction it does NOT follow that had Trump not been a sitting president, Mueller WOULD have charged him. Non-sequitur!



Evidence as it pertains to...? What if the obstruction/collusion finding relates to Clinton?



In other words: what you see, is what you get, and he wants nothing else to do with it at all.

If you pay close attention to how the language shifted, it explicitly allows for the possibility that there *was* collusion... but Robert was very careful not to indicate for Trump (or Hillary)... instead using "a presidential candidate" instead.

In reality, the Hillary Clinton DNC colluded with Russia to get "dirt" on Trump to influence the election in favor of Hillary, which is precisely why they had to attempt top pin Russia collusion on Trump.

Projection / scapegoating is the name of the game: blame the other side for what one is guilty of.

Projectors:
-John Brennan
-Maxime Waters
-Ilhan Omar
-Obama
-Clinton
etc.

This pathological degeneracy is rooted in the Judeo-Islamic supremacist religions which use goyim/infidels as puppets/slaves. Wealthy business owners/bankers/career politicians are given *access* to services (extremely illegal) via underground networks run by Dar-uul Islam. This involves human trafficking / sex slave cults. Taking the Islamic shahada is the only requirement. People are recruited, given access, but are later used/blackmailed to perform tasks that align with the strategic (military) interests of Islam: to install Sharia globally (one world government / NWO).

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/29/mueller-just-proved-his-entire-operation-was-a-political-hit-job-that-trampled-the-rule-of-law/

Mueller was part of the swamp, so had to be careful that the language he used allowed for Clinton to be the "beneficiary" of election meddling, instead of Trump, which is in fact what happened.