T Nation

Mueller's Final Statement

#1

So has he opened the door for Congress to impeach?
Or has he turned hundreds of years of American jurisprudence on its ear, by stating he could not prove innocence, rather than proving guilt?

#2

C’mon, @treco:

Mueller made it as clear as he possibly could that any historical and/or legal precedent that may (or may not) hold for most of us does not hold for the President of the United States.

The best that his Team could do was get names and collect evidence and testimony; while it was fresh; to utilize for either future prosecution or for whatever action Congress may or may not take.

In terms of impeachment? If the DEMS proceed with this, they are dumber than I thought they were. It has nothing but down-side for them. And all of this “We owe the American People” bullshit is just that…bullshit. The “American People” want you to move on…and as I’ve said in the past…(and Pelosi said it)…Trump is not worth it…he will eventually hang himself. And he better be more worried about the Southern District of New York than of Congress.

They are quietly and meticulously gathering evidence of all types on Trump and his Minions. And they ain’t playing no Politics, folks.

1 Like
#3

C’mon what? Presumption of guilt, say our latest USSC hearings are now our standard?

#4

As I said in another thread…

People will hear the exact some thing…and come to much different conclusions…

It makes me want to out a gun to my head and shoot…

#5

lol at that article saying he went beyond the report, when he just repeated what he said in the report. Ahhh politics.

#6

Yes he has. I found the whole statement very odd, to be honest. Mueller could have easily said “but for the DOJ rule, we would have recommended a prosecution.” He pointedly did not say that.

I suspect that there was not enough there there to do so, but he clearly favours impeachment.

1 Like
#7

Judeo-Chirstian principles? I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around this…

2 Likes
#8

I think he’s conflating Judeo-Christian values and English common law, which are sort of historically related, but ultimately very different.

3 Likes
#9

This is correct.

#10

All hail the common law! Continental law/jurisprudence can fuck right off.

#11

FOX is stating to go down REAL Rabbit Holes in propping-up certain individuals as the “True” voice of Conservative/Christian Values.

Their choice.

2 Likes
#12

You watch too much news if it sparks such a statement even in hyperbole.
This is business as usual.
Trump hasn’t done anything impeachable.
Strait arrow he is not, but nothing that reaches the high watermark of impeachment.
If you remember Clinton, he bold face broke the law… In public. There was no disputing that he did. It was proven and he was even disbarred.
At best there is incomplete evidence of a crime against Trump.
The dems are better off focusing on the election. If they submit a bill of impeachment that fails it will be yet more egg on their faces.
In other words, you don’t go down that road unless you’re sure it will succeed.

3 Likes
#13

Oh my Hell, @Legalsteel

Look what a shit-storm his actual statement caused!

Saying what you suggest would have caused riot’s in the street’s and strokes in most of the FOX news anchors and commentators…

1 Like
#14

I wonder if in the situation that the house gets a hearing, that democrats question him around what he would have done if not for the DOJ rule. Seems like it could backfire like OJ’s glove. Pretty risky move, but big payoff if it worked.

2 Likes
#15

No. You guys fuck off. Don’t you have a precedent to look up or something?

1 Like
#16

It would also have been appropriate as part of his duties, a fact I’m sure he’s aware of.

#17

Don’t you have some toothbrush regulations to pass?

1 Like
#18

Mueller’s a canny chap, I don’t suspect the brain trust in the congress will squeeze much out of him that he hasn’t already said.

1 Like
#19

And he should have. I get why he didn’t - the political implications are enormous - but if he believed it, and he clearly did, he should have said "the facts warrant an indictment. Whether DOJ has legal standing to do so is a separate question and for the AG to decide. But we recommend prosecution, based on what we’ve learned.,

1 Like
#20

Precisely my complaint. If he felt a ‘but for’ he should have made it clear. That said, your assessment of the political pressure is probably accurate.

1 Like