Mueller Hearings

[Shadow Wolf]

Here is a source for these terms that are defined legally:
Criminal Procedure

Stages of a Trial
Bail
After law enforcement arrests a suspect, a judge will set the suspect's initial bail, which is a specified amount of cash that allows the defendant to get out of jail after the initial arrest. If the defendant shows up for the proper court dates, the court refunds the bail, but if the defendant skips the date, then the court keeps the bail and issues a warrant for the individual's arrest.

Arraignment
The arraignment comes next. During an arraignment, a judge calls an individual charged with committing a crime, reads to the individual the criminal charges against laid against him or her, asks the accused whether the accused has access to an attorney or needs the assistance of a court-appointed attorney, asks the accused to plead, decides whether to amend the initial bail amount, and sets the dates of future proceedings.

Preliminary Hearing
The preliminary hearing follows the arraignment. At the preliminary hearing, the judge determines whether enough evidence exists for the prosecution to meet its burden of persuasion. The burden of persuasion refers to whether the prosecution even has enough evidence to make the defendant stand trial. The defense has the right to cross examine the government witnesses during this proceeding. Under the Fifth Amendment, a grand jury, rather than a judge, makes this determination when the defendant is charged with a "capital or infamous crime.”

Pre-Trial Hearing
A pre-trial hearing is the next step in the process. The prosecution and the defense team use the pre-trial to file motions before a judge. These motion usually concern whether the court should suppress certain evidence, whether certain individuals can testify, or whether the judge should dismiss all charges for lack of evidence.

Trial
After all these preliminary stages, the defendant stands trial. Both sides offer opening statements first, although the defense can reserve their opening statement until the prosecution “rests”—finishes presenting their case. The prosecution presents its witnesses and evidence first. Then, the defense presents its witnesses and evidence. After the defense rests, the defense offers a closing argument, and then the prosecution offers its final closing argument. After closing arguments, the jury deliberates and returns a verdict.

Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information

(1) In General. The indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and must be signed by an attorney for the government. It need not contain a formal introduction or conclusion. A count may incorporate by reference an allegation made in another count. A count may allege that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown or that the defendant committed it by one or more specified means. For each count, the indictment or information must give the official or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation, or other provision of law that the defendant is alleged to have violated. For purposes of an indictment referred to in section 3282 of title 18, United States Code, for which the identity of the defendant is unknown, it shall be sufficient for the indictment to describe the defendant as an individual whose name is unknown, but who has a particular DNA profile, as that term is defined in section 3282.

Rule 10. Arraignment

a) In General. An arraignment must be conducted in open court and must consist of:

(1) ensuring that the defendant has a copy of the indictment or information;

(2) reading the indictment or information to the defendant or stating to the defendant the substance of the charge; and then

(3) asking the defendant to plead to the indictment or information.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe he was referring to Trump saying that he was exonerated

Yes, he was referring to Trump. Except that he said "NOT exonerated." A fairly important difference.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A Republican questioner on that very question read what the report said, and asked Mueller if he had changed his mind regarding the statement in the report, he said no.

Interesting that you saw no reason to quote "what the report said," to which Mueller had not changed his mind...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

ABC News Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran on Democrats' Robert Mueller hearing: “impeachment’s over”

As I viewed it (some) Mueller was unconvincing with all of his stuttering, Democrats were fishing, and Republicans were on the election trail.

Question for you: how well do you think you would do if you were being asked random questions around a document of over 400 pages, about which you were instructed not to say anything that wasn't in those pages? I presume, of course, that you would never pause, have a memory lapse, not know whether your next answer would lie within your instructions, etc.

The rest of us are mortal, with the usual human failings. I think it would be nice if you could remember that sometimes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So the President is above the law now then?

Yes, if his party controls the Senate. So much for integrity, by the way.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not really, but current policy is not to indict a sitting president. If they want to impeach then they need further investigation

I find this truly, absolutely fascinating. "The current policy is not to indict a sitting president." So, if Donald Trump, the sitting president, walked into the House and shot Nancy Pelosi between the eyes, on camera, in front of the whole nation, he would not be indicted? When did you guys make presidents into God?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

That was why he was hired, to identify crimes and those who committed them.

He got his indictments, just not that of the president.

 

[Kenny]

Question for you: how well do you think you would do if you were being asked random questions around a document of over 400 pages, about which you were instructed not to say anything that wasn't in those pages? I presume, of course, that you would never pause, have a memory lapse, not know whether your next answer would lie within your instructions, etc.

The rest of us are mortal, with the usual human failings. I think it would be nice if you could remember that sometimes.

In as much as I am asked random questions about the Bible with more than 400 pages, and since he worked on it for a couple of years... I wouldn't be stuttering.

Pauses... acceptable. memory lapse, not so close to having concluded (and I'm sure he studied before he came in). Double check where it says--more than acceptable, not having done a complete job--unacceptable.

IMO

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In as much as I am asked random questions about the Bible with more than 400 pages, and since he worked on it for a couple of years... I wouldn't be stuttering.

Pauses... acceptable. memory lapse, not so close to having concluded (and I'm sure he studied before he came in). Double check where it says--more than acceptable, not having done a complete job--unacceptable.

IMO

Random questions about the Bible, eh? So tell me, where, in all of the first 39 books (that would be the Old Testament) do you find the "loving God" that Christians now claim? Remember, John claims that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God" all meaning that Jesus was there all along, through the killing of children by bears, through the massacres of the Canaanites, the killing of everybody on earth except Noah and family. Explain the deaths of all 7 of Job's children under this "God of love."

Quickly now, no time to look up references on your favourite apologetics sites...this is real-time questioning, so answer.

 

[Kenny]

Random questions about the Bible, eh? So tell me, where, in all of the first 39 books (that would be the Old Testament) do you find the "loving God" that Christians now claim? Remember, John claims that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God" all meaning that Jesus was there all along, through the killing of children by bears, through the massacres of the Canaanites, the killing of everybody on earth except Noah and family. Explain the deaths of all 7 of Job's children under this "God of love."

Quickly now, no time to look up references on your favourite apologetics sites...this is real-time questioning, so answer.

Gen 1,2 and 3 --- no looking up... with the forgiveness given to Adam and Eve with the promise of the Messiah, not to mention the BEAUTIFUL garden given to Adam and Eve.

 

[Kenny]

Random questions about the Bible, eh? So tell me, where, in all of the first 39 books (that would be the Old Testament) do you find the "loving God" that Christians now claim? Remember, John claims that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God" all meaning that Jesus was there all along, through the killing of children by bears, through the massacres of the Canaanites, the killing of everybody on earth except Noah and family. Explain the deaths of all 7 of Job's children under this "God of love."

Quickly now, no time to look up references on your favourite apologetics sites...this is real-time questioning, so answer.

Seeing Job... just now...

It wasn't God who did it. It was fear that opened the door to let Satan come and to steal, kill and destroy.

Look at it... Satan tempted God to do it... God said "He is in your hands".

No looking up.

 

[Kenny]

And no stuttering. Would you like me to deal with the bears and Canaanites?

 

[Enoch07]

Yes, he was referring to Trump. Except that he said "NOT exonerated." A fairly important difference.

Prosecutors jobs are not to exonerate people. They are to charge people. Never in the history of the U.S. in any court from the lowest to the highest. Has it been the Prosecutors job to find the defendant innocent lol.

 

[shmogie]

Interesting that you saw no reason to quote "what the report said," to which Mueller had not changed his mind...

The report said that no position was taken on the culpability of obstruction.

I would have thought anyone commenting would know this since it is one of the primary issues regarding the report

 

[shmogie]

He got his indictments, just not that of the president.

Right. But he refused make a determination re Trump and crimes, that was the purpose of his investigation

 

[The Reverend Bob]

that was the purpose of his investigation

The purpose was to investigate Russian interference, many mistake that it was a Trump hunt (mostly Democrats, who were hoping that it was a Trump hunt), it wasn't a Trump hunt. It was to find out whether the Russian interfere in the 2016 election and who was involved.

 

[shmogie]

The purpose was to investigate Russian interference, many mistake that it was a Trump hunt (mostly Democrats, who were hoping that it was a Trump hunt), it wasn't a Trump hunt. It was to find out whether the Russian interfere in the 2016 election and who was involved.

The statute States that a special prosecutor can be appointed if there is pro able cause to believe a crime has been committed i.e. Trump conspiring with the Russians that crime was not found. But if additional crimes are identified, i.e. obstruction, those and who committed them should be identified.

Mueller either did not identify obstruction, or weasels out of detailing the who what and why of it.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

The statute States that a special prosecutor can be appointed if there is pro able cause to believe a crime has been committed i.e. Trump conspiring with the Russians that crime was not found. But if additional crimes are identified, i.e. obstruction, those and who committed them should be identified.

Mueller either did not identify obstruction, or weasels out of detailing the who what and why of it.

Rep. Jeffries: Let me refer you to page 87 and 88 of volume 2 where you conclude the attempt to remove the special counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand-jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry. Correct?
Mueller: Yes.
Jeffries: Your report found on page 89, volume 2, that substantial evidence indicates that by June 17, the president knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who would present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury. True?
Mueller: True.
Jeffries: Is it fair to say the president viewed the special counsel’s investigation as adverse to his own interest?
Mueller: I think that generally is true.
Jeffries: The investigation found evidence, quote, “that the president knew that he should not have directed Don McGahn to fire the special counsel.” Correct?
Mueller: Where do you have that quote?
Jeffries: Page 90, volume 2. “There’s evidence that the president knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn,” closed quote.
Mueller: I see that. Yes, that’s accurate.
Mueller: Let me just say, if I might, I don’t subscribe necessarily to your—the way you analyzed that. I’m not saying it’s out of the ballpark, but I’m not supportive of that analytical charge

Mueller: The only thing I want to add is going through the elements with you does not mean I subscribe to the—what you’re trying to prove through those elements.
Rep. Lieu: I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?
Mueller: That is correct
Mueller (correcting himself): That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.

Rep. Buck: Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?
Mueller: Yes.
Buck: You believe that he committed—you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?
Mueller: Yes.

 

[Watchmen]

Question for you: how well do you think you would do if you were being asked random questions around a document of over 400 pages, about which you were instructed not to say anything that wasn't in those pages? I presume, of course, that you would never pause, have a memory lapse, not know whether your next answer would lie within your instructions, etc.
.

It’s called being a lawyer. He was highly regarded and respected. No more.

 

[Shadow Link]

And of course, as it turns out (as it always turns out) this is just another Trump lie. But who cares if POTUS is a liar? Near as I can tell, most people like being lied to, if the lie answers their own prejudice.

Not really, you're just confusing Rod Rosenstein with Donald Trump.