Mueller First Public Statement

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (39 posts)
  1. IslandBites profile image85
    IslandBitesposted 3 months ago

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller is set to make a statement about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    The Justice Department announced Mueller's would make a statement on Wednesday morning--his first in more than two years since he was appointed as special counsel.  A senior White House official told Fox News that the White House was advised on Tuesday night of Mueller's plans.

    Mueller's appearance comes amid mounting pressure for Mueller to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in a public setting as part of that panel’s oversight investigation of the probe and the Trump administration.

    Meanwhile, the special counsel’s office this week issued a rare denial in response to questions about controversial author Michael Wolff’s upcoming book, “Siege: Trump Under Fire,” which reportedly claims that Mueller drew up an obstruction of justice indictment against President Trump.

    According to The Guardian’s Edward Helmore, Wolff reports that Mueller’s office planned to charge the president with “influencing, obstructing or impeding a pending proceeding,” “tampering with a witness, victim or informant” and “retaliating against a witness, victim or informant” but eventually decided to “shelve” it. The Guardian reporter claimed he viewed the document, but the special counsel’s office denied it even exists.


    “The documents described do not exist,” Mueller spokesman Peter Carr told Fox News on Tuesday.

    So, is this a way to not testify? Or does this have to do with Wolff's book? Both? None?

    What do you expect?

  2. IslandBites profile image85
    IslandBitesposted 3 months ago

    As I thought, he reiterated what he said in the report. And that was that.

    He did said he would not say anything else, even if he testified. So, I guess we'll see.

    Click for Video

    1. DoubleScorpion profile image80
      DoubleScorpionposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      One thing I don't understand...If they knew from the beginning that they could not charge a sitting President, why did the investigation take so long...

      1. IslandBites profile image85
        IslandBitesposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Deleted

        1. Randy Godwin profile image89
          Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          They had to do so for congress to have evidence of impeachment if it was called for. And plainly it is...

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image80
            DoubleScorpionposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            I don't agree. Innocent until proven guilty and being guilty was not mentioned...

            Very difficult situation to approach objectively and without bias.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              You don't agree?  Facts are facts.  It is not very rational to disagree with the truth. The impeachment process determines whether or not a president is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.  It is time to initiative impeachment proceedings.  Mueller made that clear, in my opinion.

            2. promisem profile image96
              promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Mueller made it clear that Trump wasn't innocent either.

              Mueller: "If we had had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                For once we agree. It is up to Congress to bring impeachment procedures against Trump. It would prove once and for all if a trail will find the president guilty of any crimes.  I hold the Democratic Congress responsible to make this happen. I for one am over all the accusations. The way it appears as of today, Congress is doing nothing but calling for more investigations, and using this as a ploy to slander the president. Mueller investigated over two years, had some of the best investigators and legal minds working on the investigation. No stone unturned. It's time to end this with an impeachment trial. The Dem's will never impeach because there is no evidence that would aid them in impeachment.

            3. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              I am not sure what you mean by your statement Mark. "Innocent ..."  was specifically mentioned - in reference to the Russians at about the 2:50 mark of Islandbites video, and it was inferred - relative to Pres. Trump at about the 6:40 mark when he said, (paraphrase?), it would be unfair to bring charges when there could be no court adjudication of those charges.

              GA

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image80
                DoubleScorpionposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                I watched the whole thing live...and He didn't say anything new that his report didn't say...
                Someone was comparing the Bill Clinton investigation report and the Trump investigation report...and the report for Clinton had the word guilty multiple times and the Trump report didn't...It would have been much easier if the Trump report would have had the words guilty (but can't prosecute due to DOJ)...It seems everything is still cloudy...and left open for folks to decide what they do or do not believe...

                If, like Mueller states, there is not enough evidence, the democrats may very well hurt themselves if they go forward with impeachment...It would be better for them to focus on making sure he doesn't get re-elected, then move forward with trying to make a case against him.

                1. hard sun profile image87
                  hard sunposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I watched the entire statement also. Mueller didn't state there was not enough evidence for obstruction of justice.  He did say things like this:

                  "We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime,” Mueller said. “The 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.”

                  and this which only relates to one specific aspect of the investigation

                  "“insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy” on election interference.

                  None of this is new. He just made it even more plainly clear. Presidents are above the law unless Congress says otherwise.

                2. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I agree Mark. I didn't hear anything new in his statement either. But his word choice left a couple of doors open for interpretation concerning impeachment.

                  GA

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image80
                    DoubleScorpionposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    As some others have stated...

                    It does seem that he worded things in such a way as to keep the water muddy. And it seemed to me that he was indirectly asking for congress to impeach...but, his statement and even his report aren't very clear on if there is even true evidence him being guilty of anything...He mentioned something along the lines of not making a decision one way or another and wouldn't because it is required by the constitution for congress to hold the president accountable for any wrong doing...

                    I was really looking forward to Mueller clearing things up...and he didn't...so this whole thing is going to continue on until who knows when....

                    1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                      PrettyPantherposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                      It seems clear to me. Mueller cleared Trump of conspiracy to sway the election and specifically did not clear him of obstruction, with an explanation of why he did not indict.

                      How much clearer could he be without actually issuing an indictment?

          2. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Randy, For once we agree. Although is it prudent for the Congress at this point to call for more investigations in regards to President Trump. Mueller investigated Trump for over two years, had some of the best legal minds working on the investigation, and yet did not even recommend the president be indited at the end of his term.  If Congress feels
            Trump obstructed justice, perhaps they should start proceedings.  We the American people should have the right for a legal trial of the president, not a continued investigation. If Congress feels they have a case time to bring on impeachment, and not continue to perpetrate crimes have been committed without evidence. Yes, they have the evidence or lack of evidence the Mueller report has provided. As you state " They had to do so for congress to have evidence of impeachment if it was called for." So time to do their job I would say...

            In America, one is innocent until proven guilty. Time to put up evidence, not sheep food. to stir up their base.

        2. IslandBites profile image85
          IslandBitesposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          He said why in the report and he said why today.

          Today he emphasized two points of that why.

          1. The investigation is necessary because it is important to preserve evidence.
          2. Because the Constitution requires a process other than the Criminal Justice System to formerly accused a sitting president. = Impeachment

    2. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 3 months ago

      Nobody on the left knows what they're doing with this.  You bring impeachment, you'll get everything that goes with it.  The Senate won't convict.  Then I doubt you'll see a more fired up base for the 2020 election.  I hope Congress starts impeachment.  They have no idea what they would be unleashing.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

        No, the Senate would not vote to impeach. However, it would finally put an end to the fiasco. Plus it would make fools of the Congress for pursuing impeachment without evidence of a crime.

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          I agree.

          I would like to add it would make the Congress look like fools one more time for pursuing impeachment without evidence of a crime.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image89
            Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Do you guys even know what goes on in an impeachment proceeding? All of those people Trump is trying to prevent from testifying will now testify. McGahn will be forced to tell about his being order to fire Mueller and then write a cover-up letter clearing Trump.


            And this is just a small example of what to expect. Educating the public will have far more impact on the senate than you realize.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Randy, I suggest you check into executive privilege, which McGahn would be obligated to use. He cannot be forced to give testimony on the president.

              https://www.lawfareblog.com/executive-p … ns-dilemma

    3. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 3 months ago

      The bottom line take away is...if you are left of center, Trump is guilty whether evidence supports that or not. If you are center, no evidence of guilt so not guilty without further evidence. If you are right of center, he's completely vindicated.

      Mueller pretty much backs center opinion. Sorry, left right.

      1. promisem profile image96
        promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        We will find out if Trump is guilty or innocent after he leaves office and prosecutors can make the decision to indict or not.

        1. Live to Learn profile image82
          Live to Learnposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          You sound right of left of center.

          1. promisem profile image96
            promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            LOL. Yeah, it often makes me dizzy.

            And you should hear the arguments I get into with myself. Just brutal.

      2. Randy Godwin profile image89
        Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        I disagree with your assessment re the left. Trump is guilty because there's evidence of obstruction of justice--over 10 counts--to be considered even though Muller could not indict. Completely different from your comment, but I suppose you intentionally wrote it that way.

        1. Live to Learn profile image82
          Live to Learnposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Sorry I read the report. I missed where Mueller declared 10 counts of obstruction of justice that were such as could be considered indictable offenses. Did I miss that or did you make that up?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image89
            Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            It was in part two where he listed these offenses..

            1. Randy Godwin profile image89
              Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Three of these attempts to obstruct justice were Trump's telling Corey Lewendowsky--spelling probably wrong--to fire Mueller, and McGhan the same. Also Trump told McGhan to write a fake memo to cover his butt. But you already know this if you read the report.

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                I feel I must point out a very important legal point.

                In order to be found guilty of obstruction of justice, obstruction must have taken place.  Based on what you have written above, nothing was obstructed.  Mueller wasn't fired.  No fake memo was written.  No part of the investigation was obstructed.

                You really can't convict someone of breaking the law because others allege they were told by them to do something they didn't do. 

                Unless you can point to where some part of the investigation was actually obstructed, it is a very difficult if not impossible charge to prove.

                It would be like trying to get you arrested for assault because someone alleges you told them to beat someone up, but they didn't do it.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image89
                  Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Mike, simply attempting to obstruct justice is a crime in itself. Of you hired someone to murder another person and the plot was foiled, do you think you'd go free?

                  Just because the people he told to fire Mueller didn't go through with it, doesn't clear Trump from obstruction.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                    PrettyPantherposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    The many twisted rationalizations of Trumpetefs are expected, and almost funny. Almost.

                    1. Randy Godwin profile image89
                      Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                      Perhaps sadly funny, PP!  But they never stop trying to be helpful to the cretin...

                  2. Readmikenow profile image95
                    Readmikenowposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    I would like to see the legal statute concerning the punishment for attempted obstruction.  I would also like to see if there is any case law to back up an alleged crime of attempted obstruction of justice.  I would get into the criminal classification of obstruction etc., but I'm afraid it wouldn't make much sense to many of you.

                    1. Randy Godwin profile image89
                      Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                      Yep you're correct Mike, lots of stuff you say makes no sense to many of us. tongue

      3. Tim Truzy info4u profile image98
        Tim Truzy info4uposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, the center will again emerge after these wild swings to the left and right. Thank goodness.

    4. IslandBites profile image85
      IslandBitesposted 3 months ago

      Meltdown

      Some of FoxNews.com headlines:

      ANDY McCARTHY: Mueller's remarks 'explosive,' sets up impeachment talk 'for foreseeable future'

      RUSH LIMBAUGH: Robert Mueller begged Congress to impeach despite not having any evidence

      TOM DEL BECCARO: Mueller abused our legal system by speaking publicly

      JUDGE NAP: Mueller's public statement was 'not good news' for President Trump

      STEVE BUCCI: The most important finding in the Mueller Report is not about President Trump

      RUDY GIULIANI: Mueller 'lost his notion of American fairness,' may not want to face Republicans' questions

      Mueller's statement on Russia probe is not 'no collusion, no obstruction:' Bret Baier

      JOE DIGENOVA: Mueller wants us to believe Trump is a criminal and it's up to Congress to impeach him

      GREGG JARRETT: The 2 faces of the special counsel have been revealed

      Robert Mueller Russia probe statement will cause 'state of chaos' until 2020 election, Gowdy says

    5. hard sun profile image87
      hard sunposted 3 months ago

      As I think others have pointed out, it's an invitation for impeachment:

      “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 accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.”

      The system is Congress and impeachment. Mueller's team laid out the evidence and it's up to Congress to hold Trump accountable.

      Could Trump shoot someone in the back in the middle of the street and get away with it? Yes, as long as he's President and the current bunch of Republicans control the Senate.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)