Today's post is the transcript of Robert Mueller's televised statement. He kindly answered the Big Question posed earlier, "To impeach, or not impeach?"
For those with short attention spans or reading comprehension issues, I emphasized key points and summarized the inevitable conclusion.
Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel's Office.
The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel's Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.
I'll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office's written work speak for itself.
Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.
As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.
The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.
And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.
These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.
That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.
Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.
The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.
The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
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.
The Department's written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.
And second, 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 an actual charge.
So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.
We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.
The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.
At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General's good faith in that decision.
I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.
There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.
The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.
In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.
So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.
Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel's Office, were of the highest integrity.
I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American.
So, what is the "Big Answer"?
We find the answer in these key elements:
"This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity..."
The Trump campaign accepted and benefited from Russian interference.
"Insufficient evidence to charge" doesn't mean there was no evidence. This only shows obstruction of evidence was partially successful, preventing charges of conspiracy. Cooperation, aka collusion" was the "Trump campaign's response".
"That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation." And, "That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation." And, "the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President."
This means there WAS obstruction.
The damning conclusion is here: "if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that."
Instead he 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."
The message to Congress is clearly stated, "The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."
For the benefit of those still confused, Mueller has just said, in effect, "Since I cannot legally charge him, Congress must hold Crooked Don accountable for colluding with Russian interference against his opponent, and engaging in multiple attempts to obstruct the investigation."
And there it is.
The Big Answer to the Big Question, "To impeach or not impeach", is...
The big answer is how can anyone not see the treason behind the actions of the Democrats, when FBI chief says HRC BROKE THE LAW BUT DIDN'T MEAN TO, so he won't indite, but Mueller says Trump didn't break the law but he wanted to so democrats want to impeach.
Thank you for the hilarious demonstration of Pretzel Logic!
"I stepped up on the platform. The man gave me the news. He said, "You must be joking, son. Where did you get those shoes?"
Are you explaining your logic? Maybe you should take some time to explain to the, apparently, blind who can not see the treason you mention as to what you mean by the treason you mention.
You won't. Just like you won't actually read the transcript of Mueller's comments.
"...but Mueller says Trump didn't break the law but he wanted to so democrats want to impeach." ~~ Timothy L. Trueblood V, or simply "Vern"
No, Robert Mueller emphatically did not say what you claim.
You either: (A) Did not watch Mueller's statement today; (B) Did not read Dave's post which was a full transcript of Mueller's statement today; (C) Cannot read, so therefore did not read Dave's transcript of Mueller's statement; or (D) You're a liar.
I select (D). Like your president, a chronic one.
Just in case you're wondering, this is also why you're not welcome commenting on Dave's blog.
If Mueller could not charge Trump, then why did we just go through the past two years? What was the hoped for out come?
Thanks dave for allowing me to ask this. LOL
You poor thing! You have no idea why there was an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. You still think it was a hoax, amirite? Shame on you! That is a LIE.
Why can't you admit you don't want to read anything but Trump tweets? You must be quite proud of that. "Ignorance is strength" for the Party of "1984".
Mueller already answered your question.
READ IT! (If you don't you're a traitor!)
"The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign."
Note the part that DOES NOT say "No obstruction":
"And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President...As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that."
"...the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available"
And don't forget this part:
"...the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."
That means the Constitution requires Trump's impeachment and conviction.
I bet you can't get to the finish here:
"I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American."
Traitors, knuckleheads, White Nationalists, and Putin's puppets included.
Question answered. Did anyone expect a civil "thank you" from JTF? He seemed quite upset by my presentation of Mueller's answer.
So of course, JTF ignored the words of Mueller and went back to his incoherent pretzel logic babble.
Just what one would expect from traitors, knuckleheads, White Nationalists, and Putin's puppets.
Oh, and he was VERY angry again. Just like traitors, knuckleheads, White Nationalists, and Putin's puppets.
"Question answered. Did anyone expect a civil 'thank you' from [Vern]?" ~~ Dave Dubya
No, I didn't.
"[Vern] seemed quite upset by my presentation of Mueller's answer." ~~ Dave Dubya
No surprise. When the facts and truth are shoved into Vern's face, he becomes unglued. Mr. Paine used to do the same thing. ;-)
"Oh, and [Vern] was VERY angry again. Just like traitors, knuckleheads, White Nationalists, and Putin's puppets." ~~ Dave Dubya
Ya' know, when someone is dead they don't know that they're dead. All of the pain is felt by others.
The same thing happens when someone is stupid.
But whatabout FOX(R)?
Even Bret Baier had this to say on FOX(R) after Mueller's statement: "This was not, as the president says time and time again, no collusion, no obstruction ... It was not anywhere as clear-cut as Attorney General Bill Barr. In fact, it was almost exactly the opposite: not clear-cut."
Hillary is right: "The president hasn't just refused to condemn a foreign power that attacked our democracy. He's also failed to protect the country's voting systems against future attacks. He betrays his oath every day."
No wonder she got millions more votes than the racist Big MAGAt.
The Orange Witch confirms Russia helped him: "Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax...And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected." -
...along with racist accusations for JG using Jefferson's namesake and 'living in a former slave state under a BLACKFACE racist governor'. ~~ Dave Dubya, quoting Timothy L. Trueblood V, or simply "Vern"
Vern has been told several times why I admire Thomas Jefferson. He's also been told that for the standards and norms of the times, Thomas Jefferson's ownership of slaves was acceptable. So was George Washington's. So was James Madison's.
I'm not going to defend their ownership of slaves and the idea that slaves are non-persons, and neither am I going to defend the idea that corporations are persons and deserve all, or even any, of the rights of human beings.
As far as the Virginia governor, he's already made the claim the blackface person in the picture wasn't him -- and neither was the KKKoward in the same photograph.
Am I a fan of Governor Northam?...no, not really. He's been doing a pretty good job, but he's never shown me that he's a racist. Would I vote for him again, no I wouldn't.
But, we know Vern's in love with known racists. He'll vote for Trump next time even though he's a known racist. Stands to reason...he's one too. He's a KKKoward.
"The president hasn't just refused to condemn a foreign power that attacked our democracy. He's also failed to protect the country's voting systems against future attacks. He betrays his oath every day." ~~ Hillary Clinton
That's because Trump realizes he'll need Putin's and Russia's help in winning the election again.
As I recently mentioned on a different platform, I wonder whether Trump will steal this election -- courtesy of his Russian friends, of course.
It would be the primary way he would win, stupidity being the next most likely reason (with systemic racism running a close third).
"At least [Vern] still has his First Amendment right to free speech. All he has to do is be civil and relevant to the topic." ~~ Dave Dubya
Vern always has -- hate speech being exempted.
But you're speaking of your blog moderation, which is not violating his First Amendment rights. As I've mentioned more times than I can remember, and ol' Vern knows this, Google offers him every opportunity to start and maintain (monitor) his own blog -- and you've accepted Google's offer and build a successful blog.
But ol' Vern, being the closet socialist he is, expects you to do all the work while he profits from your hard work.
Not unlike corporate-welfare, where companies benefit from lucrative tax incentives (your tax dollars) --either to relocate, not relocate, or to subsidize their cost structures so they're more competitive -- Vern expects to ride your coattails and benefit from your efforts.
We always knew Vern is a socialist. He gladly accepts Medicare, we know, and happily cashes his Social Security checks each month. We also suspect he was in the armed forces (remember "Majormajor", an oldie but goodie), but that's not a certainty. If it were true, there's a possibility he stuck it out and is receiving a government (i.e., "socialist") check from there.
He continues his socialist ways when he gets a free ride on your blog. As we've come to expect, and as I illustrated above, ol' Vern demands free access from other people's efforts.
Authoritarian as he is, I doubt Vern was in the military, or any profession that requires self-less courage and good judgment. He seems to fit the "chickenhawk" war-lover mold. Cheney and Trump are his heroes, and alt-right, white nationalist racists are his fellow travelers.
You're right, at the core, Vern is a hateful vampire troll and a TAKER.
I’ve spared you Vern’s babbling on with more pretzel logic and deflecting to “whatabout” the Clintons and Obama.
Nothing to see there. He’s still confused apparently:
“Tell me again why Trump is the one being investigated”, he demanded.
Here’s the only reply he deserves:
A nitwit too stupid to understand the first dozen explanations does not deserve any more answers or responses.
“'Tell me again why Trump is the one being investigated', [Vern] demanded" ~~ Dave Dubya, quoting Timothy L. Trueblood V, or as known here, simply as "Vern"
Vern's kidding, I hope, but now I'm starting to think otherwise.
Not acknowledging the brazen obstruction and criminality, and immorality and inempness that has already been exposed, exposes Vern's own insincerity and deniability of facts and truth -- of reality itself.
But of course we already knew this about Vern. He's just like Trump, a liar and manipulator, and like Trump is unconvincing to people of right mind and consciousness.
We've discussed at length Vern's extreme behavior. Normal people do not do this, nor would even consider it. My own conclusion is that Vern suffers from some form of mental illness, and unfortunately we all have to suffer the consequences.
Just remember the Alt-right playbook, DD. They don't actually want answers, just control of the conversation.
Donny Deutsch is on to something:
"You take the word 'impeachment' and you change it to 'criminal activity.'
"Democrats need to initiate ongoing, "Trump criminal investigations," Deutsch suggests. "Trump. Criminal." Brand him. "You make Trump say, 'I'm not a criminal,'" Deutsch argues. Drop "impeachment." It's a loser.
We've been correctly calling the racist liar a criminal all along. Time for the spineless dems to call him for what he is too.
Unlike mental illness, Vern's lies, hatred and delusions are willfully embraced beliefs and authoritarian propaganda. It is evil, not mental illness.
I have more respect and compassion for the mentally ill, who have also suffered disdain, neglect, and abuse from Nazis, fascists, and Right Wing Authoritarians.
Yes, and JTF is very frustrated and furious that I happen to control what he says here. He has many nasty ad hominem terms for me and JG especially. The more we tell the truth about him, the more he lies about us.
Of course Vern wants to control the conversation. He is a Right Wing Authoritarian. He has no interest in honest conversation.
It is the nature Right Wing Authoritarians to seek to dominate and control the majority that are not like them. They have no conscience, and are the modern equivalent of 20th century Italian Fascists and German Nazis.
I'm not exaggerating.
If we didn't have a system of checks and balances, justice, and a Constitution, all weakened enough already, they would be building even more concentration camps, for not only immigrants, but all political opponents.
"Lock her up!" is the cry of a fascist mob. Accusations of "treason" for those who question and oppose the leader is tyranny.
The hate-filled bigoted Party of Trump are not that much different from Nazis. They have done, and will do, whatever they can get away with.
"[Vern] has many nasty ad hominem terms for me and JG especially. The more we tell the truth about him, the more he lies about us." ~~ Dave Dubya
I'm happy I'm still the KKKoward's favorite!
Gee, I guess he's also a snowflake, hurt feelings and all. Be sure to let Vern know I still think he's crazier than "batshit crazy", and I don't even know if they've coined a phrase for that or not.
"The hate-filled bigoted Party of Trump are not that much different from Nazis. ~~ Dave Dubya
Only the name is different, Dave, and their Fuhrer's hair color. Whether Nazism or Trumpism, only the times have changed. The ideologies and intentions are essentially identical.
"crazier than "batshit crazy", and I don't even know if they've coined a phrase for that or not." - JG
Red Hat is Hatred spelled inside-out. It is the new white hood.
When asked if Trump's birtherism is racist, Kushner said, "I was not involved with that. I've not seen anything in him that is racist."
Right. Birtherism is not racism to racists, is it? Just the facts. And he's only involved in Trump's family, business, politics, and administration. What does HE know?
This is not mental illness. It is racism and fascism. Just the facts.
"Red Hat. ~~ TB3
Hmm, not familiar with "Red Hat". Googled it and came up with Roman Catholic Cardinal's head apparel. Must be a meme.
I'll look it up tomorrow. Right now, enjoying grilling outside, sipping champagne, on a beautiful east coast cool (almost) summer evening.
Peace, and namaste, all...
"You can't spell hatred without a red hat." Got it! (Who said ya' can't teach an old dog new tricks? ;-) Well, not ol' Vern, of course. He's still caught up in the hatred of his family's KKK beginnings. I wonder whether any of his "Timothy L. Trueblood" bloodline ever gained "grand wizardry" status? Probably not smart enough. Doubt it, especially if "The fifth" is any indication.)
The new, and unimproved, "Red Hat Society". This new hate cult ruined these women's innocent attempt to engage and make new friends.
Post a Comment