• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller Knowingly Lied to Us (1 Viewer)

Condor060 said:
Yeah, right, For some reason I didn't see any links supporting anything you posted so I when you can find something to refute the documents, I give it a read. Other than that, blind ideas about how much more you know than the Attorney General really don't count for much. I know you are used to having your way but unfortunately, you're gonna need a bit more than orange man bad to get any mileage around here.
Click to expand...

Well, there you go again! I never claimed to know more than the Attorney General and never said "orange man bad"; like I said when you have to make **** up … you lose!

Muller didn't lie, your op is the lie. For reference I would refer you to the Mueller report and Mueller's statement.

If all you got is personal attacks … i'm done; really, really! :2wave:
 
Irwin Corey said:
Apparently Rosenstein didn't see it that way.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

But then there is the fact that independent counsels or special prosecutors don't exist anymore. Those were established by law following Watergate.

They expired in 1999.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43112.pdf

Those parts of the Ethics in Government Act relating to independent counsels regularly had fiveyear “sunset” provisions, and were eventually allowed by Congress to expire after June 30, 1999.9 Since the law’s expiration no “independent counsel” or “special prosecutor,” as those terms have been used since 1978, may now be appointed by an independent judicial panel upon the request of the Attorney General to investigate or prosecute a matter on behalf of the United States.​

Quite the legal brain trust posting on this thread...
 
Condor060 said:
Sure they could but the investigation would be out of the control of the DOJ and they wouldn't be able to assign 14 Democrats to investigate.
Click to expand...

Actually no. Those titles don't exist anymore. It was a trick question.

And you are correct, there is nothing precluding Mueller from stating the evidence involving obstruction showed probable cause to conclude it occurred.

The fact that "probable cause" does not appear anywhere in the Mueller Report, as it relates to the President, further confirms Mueller and his partisan team are completely full of ****.
 
Condor060 said:
Well, it stopped the only one with any significance. After 2 years, 30 million spent, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of witnesses, The Attorney General states no collusion, no obstruction so that case is closed. Now if you want to move forward with an investigation or Impeachment motion with no criminal charges in the wake of every witness already deposed, and every document provided, best of luck on that front. You might get a few Loony Liberals in the house to go along but that will be the end of it.

As for Trump being such a horrible man. I will take his economy, stock market, unemployment, and 5 million new jobs over anything Democrats have offered in over 60 years.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. The attorney general saying there was no collusion might as well be donald trump saying there was no collusion...and it didn't cost thirty million. Trump inherited a growing economy he didn't create it. Obama created the growing economy after the disaster the country was in when bush left office. Republicans have a few good years and then proceed to wreck everything throwing the country into a spiral which the dems then dig us out of only to have the republicans do the same thing over and over. Name me the last republican president who knocked down the debt or didn't leave the country in an economic mess.
 
Condor060 said:
What is the job of a Special Counsel?
In the United States, a special counsel (formerly called special prosecutor or independent counsel) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.

What is the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion in regards to indicting a president?
In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

The OLC does not preclude the recommendation of criminal charges to the Attorney General or Congress. If it did, you could never impeach a sitting president. Muellers job was to reach a conclusion and report that conclusion to the AG.
William Barr: Robert Mueller 'could've reached a decision' on obstruction

Muellers job was to investigate and make criminal recommendations to the Attorney General and it also requires the special counsel to kept its findings confidential. The AG would then make his determinations and recommendation to Congress.

As was the case of Ken Starr. Starr made 11 criminal charges against a sitting president (Bill Clinton) to Congress. Congress found Clinton guilty of all 11 felony counts and had Clintons legal license disbarred. Even with 11 guilty findings, Clinton was not impeached or convicted by the Senate.
Starr Report - Wikipedia

Mueller stated he was precluded from indicting or charging the president with a crime because of the OLC opinion.
False statement as that was never Muellers job. His job was to investigate and make his recommendation to the AG.

Mueller couldn't find any criminal charges to recommend in his report and didn't make any assessment on obstruction so the Deputy Director (Rosenstein) and Attorney General Barr made those decisions and reported to Congress.
No collusion, No obstruction

Mueller lied to the American public by stating he couldn't make recommendations and that his hands were tied by the OLC opinion. So why did he do that?

Mueller is under heavy fire because he has destroyed any Democratic hope of Impeaching Trump hence why he assigned 14 Democrats to the counsel. Since they couldn't find a criminal act to recommend, he did the next best thing. He filled his report (Not with investigation assessments) but one sided theories and stories of what could be and what if's.

Then he waits until Barr in on a plane to Alaska and (without Barr's knowledge or consent) goes on TV and tells everyone his hands were tied. Fortunatly Barr has already come out and say that wasn't true.

Prior to this report being released, what happened?

President Trump was asked by AG Barr if Trump wanted to execute his executive privilege to withhold or redact anything in the report. What most people don't know is the AG isn't required to turn over a special counsel report. He is required to file his own report to Congress.

Trump decided to allow the report to be seen in its entirety less the required federal protected portions on grand jury data.
Click to expand...

Mueller paid his due to the crooked deep state who kept him in power for decades. Now he wants to go away and hide from anyone wanting him to answer questions. He knows he is at serious risk and will fight talking to investigators with everything he has left, just like Lois Lerner did when she was found out.
 
bongsaway said:
Hilarious. The attorney general saying there was no collusion might as well be donald trump saying there was no collusion...and it didn't cost thirty million. Trump inherited a growing economy he didn't create it. Obama created the growing economy after the disaster the country was in when bush left office. Republicans have a few good years and then proceed to wreck everything throwing the country into a spiral which the dems then dig us out of only to have the republicans do the same thing over and over. Name me the last republican president who knocked down the debt or didn't leave the country in an economic mess.
Click to expand...

Cool story. Thanks for sharing it.
 
ocean515 said:
Actually no. Those titles don't exist anymore. It was a trick question.

And you are correct, there is nothing precluding Mueller from stating the evidence involving obstruction showed probable cause to conclude it occurred.

The fact that "probable cause" does not appear anywhere in the Mueller Report, as it relates to the President, further confirms Mueller and his partisan team are completely full of ****.
Click to expand...

My understanding has always been, a special counsel is created under the DOJ but an independent counsel is appointed by a federal judge. The special counsel has more limitations like observing the OLC opinion where the independent counsel is only governed by the court.
 
Condor060 said:
My understanding has always been, a special counsel is created under the DOJ but an independent counsel is appointed by a federal judge. The special counsel has more limitations like observing the OLC opinion where the independent counsel is only governed by the court.
Click to expand...

There are new rules in place as the CRS summary from 2013 that I linked detailed.

Perhaps there are others depending on the purpose and objective. And the title may be different than the specific ones I used.

In the end, you are spot on with your statement about Mueller.
 
Condor060 said:
In the legal world, no evidence exist to support a criminal referral. Taking the words out of the sentence (or out of context) doesn't have the same meaning. You might have evidence I shot your dog because he was shot with a 45 but it doesn't mean I did it. We can parse words all day but staying on topic.
1. Mueller said he couldn't recommend a criminal charge against Trump because of the OLC opinion.
2. We now know Mueller lied and it is his responsibility to report all criminal activities to the AGs office
3. Barr reinforced that statement yesterday concluding Mueller could have recommended criminal charges
4. Mueller didn't recommened any criminal charges to the AGs office
5. Barr reported to Congress that no collusion or obstruction exist.

Pretty much case closed
Click to expand...

1. Not Mueller’s words, but essentially the message he conveyed.

2. No, Mueller did not lie. And he did provide the AG with a very detailed report of all information gathered.

3. Barr has the right to assert that Mueller could have made recommendations, and Mueller had the right not to make recommendations based on his extensive legal knowledge and sense of fairness. Remember, Mueller’s instructions did not call for the Special Counsel to make any recommendations to the AG.

4. Correct.

5. Barr reported to the public that he and Rosenstein concluded no conspiracy and insufficient evidence to prove obstruction.

Trump and his loyalists want the questions to end, but they won’t, and they shouldn’t.

There are witnesses (including the American public) and evidence of Trump’s attempts at obstruction.

In case you need a reminder: Here Are All the Ways Trump May Have Obstructed Justice | Time
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Trump and his loyalists want the questions to end, but they won’t, and they shouldn’t.

There are witnesses (including the American public) and evidence of Trump’s attempts at obstruction.
Click to expand...

We may disagree on a few items but I absolutely agree we should get everything on the table. After the FISA warrant information is de-classified for public consumption I think Mueller needs to be questioned. I think there is a lot more out there to dig up and I say let the cards fall where they may.

No matter who is implicated.
 
Condor060 said:
We may disagree on a few items but I absolutely agree we should get everything on the table. After the FISA warrant information is de-classified for public consumption I think Mueller needs to be questioned. I think there is a lot more out there to dig up and I say let the cards fall where they may.

No matter who is implicated.
Click to expand...
In an environment of honest, unbiased truth seeking I’d agree with your sentiment, fully. Unfortunately, we’re pretty far from that, so I have no faith that the innocent will be publicly recognized and those who’ve done wrong will be appropriately dealt with.
 
iguanaman said:
The "process" delivered 31 indictments, multiple guilty pleas and a roadmap for Congress to impeach the President for obstruction......and it paid for itself with Manaforts forfeiture of $40 million. And please shut up about Barr, he is a national disgrace. What he says is worthless drivel.

5_113.jpg
Click to expand...

Awesome.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Mueller lied according to your expert legal opinion? OK

I highlighted in red what is clearly false about your statement. I guess you're the one lying. It is NOT TRUE that Mueller couldn't find any criminal charges to recommend. That is contradicted by your next sentence where you admit Mueller says his hands were tied by OLC opinion. You can't even keep your own story straight.
Click to expand...

Mueller either didn't lie or he didn't read the report that someone else wrote for him to read because the SC spokesmen had to
backtrack on what Mueller read!

Mueller Backtracks on Presser, Tries to Clarify Matters in Joint Statement with Bill Barr
Despite Mueller’s ridiculous insinuations and morphing of the rule of law yesterday,
one thing was clear. He didn’t want to go to war with Bill Barr and Mueller was sure
to not accuse him of anything.

Now it looks like there’s a bit of a further walk back from the former special counsel.
The media’s takeaway was originally to foam at the mouth over the idea that Trump would
have been charged with a crime if he weren’t President.

'“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed
that he was not saying that, but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have
found the President obstructed justice,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec
and special counsel spokesman Peter Carr in a statement issued Wednesday evening.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Awesome.
Click to expand...

Barr is actually the problem...most specifically his position as AG in what has already been a grotesque Administration led by a grotesque Chief Executive.

Mueller ran a good shop. I only find fault with one line in his Report, the "can't exonerate" line. Had I been advising him I would have advised him against that line and would have had him insert text from my side of the world, the dark side of Marketing. He desperately needed one Marketing Son-of-a Bitch on his staff. Somebody from my side of the world. He would likely have recoiled at my recommendation. But had Mueller accepted what I would have recommended, the public perception of his Report would have been much better, some of the ambiguity would have been eliminated and it would have driven Trump absolutely off the deep end. It would have been entirely legitimate and legal. Had Barr been in the same position Mueller was in with the same assignment, Barr would have embraced my recommendation. That speaks volumes about the two men.

But there is a larger problem. The Special Counsel rules control the show. Barr's actions have had nothing to do with Justice or the Law and have had everything to do with politics and lap dogging for Trump. Trump has always wanted his Roy Cohn at AG of all things. He has him. Worth noting that the real Roy Cohn having been enough of a whack job to get himself disbarred would never have been allowed to be AG. Yet that is the guy Trump wanted to model as his AG. At any rate, Barr would simply have massaged his approach to the Mueller Report based on what he found there. He would have made changes, modifications, deletions, held more pressers, whatever. Two years of Investigation yields the Donald and Bill show.

Congress needs to do its job. Its that simple. Pelosi can justify her rejection of Impeachment hearings all the way up to Mueller at the podium. Congress comes back next week. She will have to relent to Impeachment shortly after they come back IMO....within weeks at most.
 
slick said:
Mueller either didn't lie or he didn't read the report that someone else wrote for him to read because the SC spokesmen had to
backtrack on what Mueller read!

Mueller Backtracks on Presser, Tries to Clarify Matters in Joint Statement with Bill Barr
Despite Mueller’s ridiculous insinuations and morphing of the rule of law yesterday,
one thing was clear. He didn’t want to go to war with Bill Barr and Mueller was sure
to not accuse him of anything.

Now it looks like there’s a bit of a further walk back from the former special counsel.
The media’s takeaway was originally to foam at the mouth over the idea that Trump would
have been charged with a crime if he weren’t President.

'“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed
that he was not saying that, but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have
found the President obstructed justice,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec
and special counsel spokesman Peter Carr in a statement issued Wednesday evening.
Click to expand...

Horse bleep. Pay attention to the principles, Mueller, Barr, Trump and Pelosi in this case. Everything else is a distraction and a sideshow.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
In an environment of honest, unbiased truth seeking I’d agree with your sentiment, fully. Unfortunately, we’re pretty far from that, so I have no faith that the innocent will be publicly recognized and those who’ve done wrong will be appropriately dealt with.
Click to expand...

Obviously we won't know until we see the declassified information but my gut tells me, (With what we know thus far) This was the insurance policy Strzok was talking about. I now side with the idea this was a premeditated attempt to take donw a president.
 
bongsaway said:
Hilarious. The attorney general saying there was no collusion might as well be donald trump saying there was no collusion...and it didn't cost thirty million. Trump inherited a growing economy he didn't create it. Obama created the growing economy after the disaster the country was in when bush left office. Republicans have a few good years and then proceed to wreck everything throwing the country into a spiral which the dems then dig us out of only to have the republicans do the same thing over and over. Name me the last republican president who knocked down the debt or didn't leave the country in an economic mess.
Click to expand...

Well, want do we know thus far? Obamas national debt was doubled what every [resident in history did combined. Was it all his fault, probably not but that is the marker. I just can't correlate historical unemployment and stock market numbers to a handed off economy as the only way we got those numbers was through deregulation. Not a market just growing on its own. Also, Obama made it pretty clear his 1.7 GDP was the new norm and what was Trump going to do, wave a magic wand?

After 3.2 GDP and over 5 million new jobs its a bit late to try and attribute that to Obama who said it wouldn't happen.
 
Condor060 said:
Obviously we won't know until we see the declassified information but my gut tells me, (With what we know thus far) This was the insurance policy Strzok was talking about. I now side with the idea this was a premeditated attempt to take donw a president.
Click to expand...
Anything’s possible, but I believe that falls outside the boundaries of probable. We’ll see, maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom