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?
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
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...
They had to do so for congress to have evidence of impeachment if it was called for. And plainly it is...
I don't agree. Innocent until proven guilty and being guilty was not mentioned...
Very difficult situation to approach objectively and without bias.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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?
I agree that he did appear to clear all Americans of working to help Russian interfere with our elections...For the obstruction, it seems that he was saying that he couldn't do anything from the onset of the investigation (at least to the president) and so he reported what was found and would not make a decision one way or another as there was no court to determine guilt or non-guilt. It seemed to me, that he was saying that he shouldn't have been looking into that anyways and that congress should have investigated that aspect via impeachment hearings.
Maybe I am wrong in how I am taking it, but that is how it seemed to me.
One thing I do know, I was hoping that Mueller would clear up the waters, but he didn't. He didn't say anything different than what was already in his report, which was very ambiguous to say the least.
For those like me, who are independent and pretty much in the middle from a political standpoint, there is way to much gray and since this country goes with innocent until proven guilty, we tend to lean towards the "not enough evidence to say guilty or not guilty." And that leaves us with a few options, 1. Is drop it and focus on policy and removing Trump via elections or 2. Moving forward with impeachment and deal with the fallout of the result regardless if it proves guilt or not.
Personally, I think impeachment at this point, is not going to be effective and will have the opposite effect of what many Democrats wish to see...Trump removed from office. We will end up with a scenario like we saw with Clinton, when the Republicans tried a similar tactic back in the day, Trump being cleared and gaining popularity.
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.
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
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.
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.
I would like to add it would make the Congress look like fools one more time for pursuing impeachment without evidence of a crime.
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.
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
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.
We will find out if Trump is guilty or innocent after he leaves office and prosecutors can make the decision to indict or not.
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.
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?
It was in part two where he listed these offenses..
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.
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.
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.
The many twisted rationalizations of Trumpetefs are expected, and almost funny. Almost.
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.
Yes, the center will again emerge after these wild swings to the left and right. Thank goodness.
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
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.
by Sharlee 14 months ago
Although the special counsel' Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference does not come to any concrete conclusion as to whether President Trump sought to obstructed justice, Robert Mueller's team did find and examine 10 "discrete acts" in which Mueller infers President Trump may have...
by IslandBites 20 months ago
Every time Trump gets unhinged, someone gets indicted. Based on his last twitter tirade and reports of various cooperation agreements going, who do you think is next?
by Randy Godwin 4 days ago
Paul Manafort--already in deep doo doo--is in further jeopardy because of his repeated lies to Robert Mueller's investigators after he signed an agreement to cooperate with the probe. He seems to be betting all of his chips on a pardon from Trump by breaking the deal. The reasons for Mueller's move...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 2 years ago
What will DJT's answers be to 1. Questions about Paul Manafort reaching out to Russians during the campaign2. The beauty contest in Russia (significance possibly "Did you spend the night?")What Robert Mueller's questions for Donald Trump reveal about the Russia...
by IslandBites 14 months ago
Special counsel Robert Mueller has finished his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.Mueller’s confidential report has been delivered to Attorney General William Barr, the Justice Department announced Friday.Barr must now decide whether to release the report or parts of it to...
by Don W 16 months ago
Over 370 former federal prosecutors signed a statement saying they believe the special counsel's investigation would have resulted in obstruction of justice charges if Donald Trump was not the president of the United States:"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|