Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's the thing. There is no actual law specified that was breached, otherwise the Socialist Democrats would be all over it.
Trump is not being indicted of anything.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mueller Hearings
- Thread starter The Reverend Bob
- Start date
Trump is not being indicted of anything.
ecco
Veteran Member
Either you did not watch the hearings or you are intentionally
The following is from Chair's opening statement:
Robert Mueller's testimony before Congress: Full transcript
Later...NADLER:
Volume 2 walks us through 10 separate incidents of possible obstruction of justice where, in your words, President Trump attempted to exert undue influence over your investigation. The president's behavior included, and I quote from your report, quote, "public attacks on the investigation, nonpublic efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate," close quote. Among the most shocking of these incidents, President Trump ordered his White House counsel to have you fired, and then to -- to lie and deny that it had happened, he ordered his former campaign manager to convince the recused attorney general to step in and limit your work, and he attempted to prevent witnesses from cooperating with your investigation.
Shortly thereafter...
NADLER:
Now, reading from page 2 of Volume 2 of your report that's on the screen, you wrote, quote, "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment," close quote. Now does that say there was no obstruction?
MUELLER:
No.
Volume 2 walks us through 10 separate incidents of possible obstruction of justice where, in your words, President Trump attempted to exert undue influence over your investigation. The president's behavior included, and I quote from your report, quote, "public attacks on the investigation, nonpublic efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate," close quote. Among the most shocking of these incidents, President Trump ordered his White House counsel to have you fired, and then to -- to lie and deny that it had happened, he ordered his former campaign manager to convince the recused attorney general to step in and limit your work, and he attempted to prevent witnesses from cooperating with your investigation.
Shortly thereafter...
NADLER:
Now, reading from page 2 of Volume 2 of your report that's on the screen, you wrote, quote, "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment," close quote. Now does that say there was no obstruction?
MUELLER:
No.
JACKSON LEE:
Thank you.
Let me go to the screen again. And for each of those 10 potential instances of obstruction of justice, you analyzed three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice: an obstructive act, a nexus between the act and official proceeding, and corrupt intent, is that correct?
MUELLER:
Yes.
JACKSON LEE:
You wrote on page 178, Volume 2 in your report about corrupt intent, "Actions by the president to end a criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct," is that correct?
MUELLER:
Yes.
Thank you.
Let me go to the screen again. And for each of those 10 potential instances of obstruction of justice, you analyzed three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice: an obstructive act, a nexus between the act and official proceeding, and corrupt intent, is that correct?
MUELLER:
Yes.
JACKSON LEE:
You wrote on page 178, Volume 2 in your report about corrupt intent, "Actions by the president to end a criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct," is that correct?
MUELLER:
Yes.
ecco
Veteran Member
Mueller was directed by DOJ/White House to stay within the confines of the Report.
Robert Mueller's testimony before Congress: Full transcript
Staying within the confines of the report...
MUELLER:
I direct you to the -- what we've written in the report in terms of characterizing his feelings.
MUELLER:
I direct you again to the report.
MUELLER:
That is -- that is directly from the report.
I direct you to the -- what we've written in the report in terms of characterizing his feelings.
MUELLER:
I direct you again to the report.
MUELLER:
That is -- that is directly from the report.
Not speculating...
DEUTCH:
Director Mueller, the most important question I have for you today is why? Director Mueller, why did the President of the United States want you fired?
MUELLER:
I can't answer that question.
If Mueller had replied "He wanted me fired because he was afraid he and his insiders would be harmed, you would have been screaming and yelling BIAS!Director Mueller, the most important question I have for you today is why? Director Mueller, why did the President of the United States want you fired?
MUELLER:
I can't answer that question.
Toeing the lines under which he was appointed...
ROBY:
Director Mueller, you just said in response to two different lines of questionings that you would refer -- as it relates to this firing discussion that I would refer you to the report and the way it was characterized in the report. Importantly, the president never said, fire Mueller or in the investigation. And one doesn't necessitate the other. And McGahn, in fact, did not resign; he stuck around for a year and a half.
On March 24th, Attorney General Barr formed the committee that he had received the special counsel's report and it was not until April 18th that the attorney general released the report to Congress and the public. When you submitted your report to the attorney general, did you deliver a redacted version of the report so that he would be able to release it to Congress and the public without delay, pursuant to his announcement of his intention to do so during his confirmation hearing?
MUELLER:
I'm not going to engage in a discussion about what happened after the production of our report.
ROBY:
Had the attorney general asked you to provide a redacted version of the report?
MUELLER:
We worked on the redacted versions together.
ROBY:
Did he ask you for a version where the grand jury material was separated?
MUELLER:
I'm not going to get into details.
ROBY:
Is it your belief that an unredacted version of the report could be released to Congress or the public?
MUELLER:
That's not within my purview.
Director Mueller, you just said in response to two different lines of questionings that you would refer -- as it relates to this firing discussion that I would refer you to the report and the way it was characterized in the report. Importantly, the president never said, fire Mueller or in the investigation. And one doesn't necessitate the other. And McGahn, in fact, did not resign; he stuck around for a year and a half.
On March 24th, Attorney General Barr formed the committee that he had received the special counsel's report and it was not until April 18th that the attorney general released the report to Congress and the public. When you submitted your report to the attorney general, did you deliver a redacted version of the report so that he would be able to release it to Congress and the public without delay, pursuant to his announcement of his intention to do so during his confirmation hearing?
MUELLER:
I'm not going to engage in a discussion about what happened after the production of our report.
ROBY:
Had the attorney general asked you to provide a redacted version of the report?
MUELLER:
We worked on the redacted versions together.
ROBY:
Did he ask you for a version where the grand jury material was separated?
MUELLER:
I'm not going to get into details.
ROBY:
Is it your belief that an unredacted version of the report could be released to Congress or the public?
MUELLER:
That's not within my purview.
None of the above is deflecting or refusing to answer because he didn't know or because he was trying to CoverHisOwnAss.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Policy is not law, and this has never been tested in court. However, if he is following that policy, nothing precludes him from specifically identifying crimes, and identifying who committed them. That is what prosecutors do, that was his job.
His job was not to exonerate anyone, nor was his job to throw the concept of innocent until proven guilty into the trash.
Without drawing a conclusion, he saw to it that Trump was trashed. That NEVER happens with real investigators in the real world. You either file on them or get an indictment, if you can´t, you keep your mouth shut.
Frankly, the whole thing is disgusting. It started based upon bogus information that was never vetted, went on for two years and 25 million dollars to Show that the Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians, prove all the democrats liars regarding the charges they made.
Then within the framework of an investigation that had no PC to begin in the first place, where Trump was not guilty of what the democrats were yelling about, Mueller investigates Trumps intent, regarding what he (Trump) wanted to do because he felt crucified for no reason.
Intent without an act is not a crime, unless conspiracy can be established.
Mueller was never impeded in any way by Trump.
Yet Mr. FBI and his team of democrat lawyers would not even say if Trump committed a crime, opening the door for the impeachment idiots.
Pitiful.
If the government can do this to the President of the US, just think what they can do to your or I, with no crime committed, and no crime identified.
For us, it would mean being ground into fish meal by the government, and they don´t even have to prove anything.
Beria, Stalins head of secret police would be proud that the US government follows his lead.
ecco
Veteran Member
Yeah, that crowd isn't into well-articulated comments. Once anything goes beyond "lock her up" or "build that wall", they get lost.
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
His job was to investigate Russian interference and he did. And guess what? The Russians are interfering with our elections.
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Really? Then why 199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and 5 prison sentences if nothing happened?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Exactly, and what Mueller said was that there was not enough evidence to take that collusion findings to the criminal level, and this is what some people don't understand or don't want to understand.
ecco
Veteran Member
A sitting President cannot be indicted. That should be clear to you if you have been following all of this.
An impeachment hearing is the equivalent of a Grand Jury indictment procedure. The House of Reps is responsible for the indictment (impeachment).
The Senate is the equivalent of a trial. The Dems know that the Republican Majority Senate will never rule against Trump.
So, a House Impeachment is worthless.
ecco
Veteran Member
Here is the transcript:
Robert Mueller's testimony before Congress: Full transcript
Please show where Mueller said that.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Then why if Trump committed a crime, didn´t he say so ? After all, Trump was the democrat big fish ?
The others ? Crimes committed long before the Trump campaign, pretty petty crimes like lying to the FBI, etc.
So, he could identify crime and prosecute it, but he couldn´t just identify Trump and his crimes if he committed a crime ?
Mueller has become a slow, unsure, forgetful, stumbling old guy. It is readily apparent that he had little control of this investigation.
The democrats on his team got just what they set out to get.
It is sad what you see when Zorro is unmasked, painful. Even more painful when he was played like a fiddle.
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Wow, deja vu all over again and you keep saying is a forgetful old guy, pot meet kettle. we went through this before, Mueller was following policy and couldn't indict the president, he was there to investigate Russian interference and yes indeed the Russians did interfere and are continuing to interfere with our political process.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Get off the accusations. If Trump committed a crime, why didn´t he say so ? That has nothing to do with an indictment, it is an investigatory conclusion.
Imagine, to spend all that time, writing a report with the bulk of it about Trump, but yet he coudn´t say if he committed a crime.
Starr did it in his report, but never attempted to indict Clinton.
You have no idea how ludicrous this is.
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
We have danced this dance before.
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
The investigation was about Russian interference. Why can't you get that into your head?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It takes a Russian to know a Russian.
So, Who was the Russian that interfered ?
No thank you. Yes, you know the Bible as well as I do...at least the words. But what you clearly cannot see is how vile those very episodes you are describing are, and how they make this very reasonable person cringe.
And you also cannot see, as I suggested at the beginning of this little exercise, how the "loving God" of Christianity is simply not evident in any of those examples. Very, very much the opposite. I can't tell you why you are blind to that truth -- perhaps out of some deep need that I know nothing of, and maybe you don't, either -- but blind you are.
You blithely mention Job, and blame it all on Satan, but who did Satan tempt? God! And God bit...and the cost of that bite was the lives of 7 human beings, Job's children.
The 42 children and the bears? God called up bears to kill (in an obviously horrific manner) CHILDREN for calling Elisha "baldy." (Even if it was the truth!)
And the Canaanites? Kill all, leave none alive, not even male children, only female virgins that you can "keep for yourselves?" (For what purpose that, I wonder?)
And really, didn't God create pigs? And shrimp? Maybe they're "unclean," but does that justify animal cruelty?
There is no good and loving God in that, none whatever. And all the apologetics in the world (and I've read boat-loads full of them) will ever convince me otherwise.
And that, as the say, is "the Bible truth!"
Last edited:
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
This is going to hurt.
13 Russians Indicted as Mueller Reveals Effort to Aid Trump Campaign
12 Russian Agents Indicted in Mueller Investigation
Konstantin Kilimnik - Wikipedia
Maria Butina - Wikipedia
Criminal charges brought in the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) - Wikipedia.
Mueller Russia Indictment
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
They're just indictments, not a conviction.
So where are the convicted Russians?
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Concord Management pleaded not guilty, trial is pending
Maria Butina is in prison.
And the rest are hiding out in Russian because if they every step foot in the US they will be arrested and questioned