• 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's Many Mistakes

haymarket said:
With the recent Trump interview with ABC News George S., we know now how Trump really feels about foreign interference in campaign despite all the earlier denials. This interview sheds new light on the issue of intent.

Mueller made many mistakes in his 2 year long inquiry - almost all of which have benefitted Trump greatly.

Among the Mueller mistakes were

1 - Not going to court to force Trump to answer all of his questions.

2 - Not pursuing the financial history of Trump to determine if he had been compromised and wrongly under the control or at least undue influence of foreign governments like Russia.

3 - Giving Trump Tower participants be benefit of the doubt regarding the element of intent to break the federal election law concerning help from foreign nations or persons.

4 - Not indicting Trump for crimes.

5 - Not indicting Donald Trump Jr. and others for their role in crimes.

6 - Not clearly saying that Trump committed crimes regarding the ten instances of obstruction of justice.

7 - Not delivering a summary of his key findings in person.

8 - Allowing Barr to hijack his Report and grossly misrepresent and lie about its contents thereby derailing the issue.

9 - Stating that he will NOT testify before Congress and continuing that position.

All of these taken together greatly weakened both the position of Mueller during the investigation, in the delivery and reception of his report, and in the response to the report from Trump and others. Lots of people keep saying "read the report" and its falling on deaf ears. And Mueller bears a great deal of responsibility for this situation because he allowed himself to be outmaneuvered, outfoxed, as well as just plain stonewalled.
Click to expand...

1. No reason to. There was no conspiracy between his campaign and Russia. He had no particular information to give.

2. Why? Will prosecutors be now be appointed to examine the financial records of all candidates to make such conclusions?

3. Need evidence. It's also a 1st amendment thing.

4. What crimes? There were none.

5. Ditto as to #4.

6. Because he didn't.
Did Mueller obstruct justice with his decisions 1-10?

7 & 9. He needs to testify. Nadler ought be subpoenaing him.

8. Barr said Mueller found no conspiracy between Russia and Trump. And he said Mueller said no exoneration for obstruction. Which was accurate.

Mueller's real mistake was in not issuing an interim report when he determined that there was no conspiracy between Trump and Russia. That would have saved the country a lot of problems.

6.
 
BuzzwordBingo said:
He was ask a hypothetical question about about a hypothetical situation, of which he offered a hypothetical answer. Last time I checked that does not equate to collusion or any other crime for that matter. So your post is nothing but bunk. Lol
Click to expand...

I'm sure El Chapo has used that defense many times. Look where it got him.
 
Mycroft said:
The answer is already known. He can't tell them anything they don't already know. The law won't let him.
Click to expand...

You do not know that if you do not hear what he might say. And the nature of the actual testimony is far more powerful than a cold word on a page that few ever read.

But the - you knew that and that is what you are afraid of.
 
apdst said:
Do you seriously believe that foreign money is going to show up on his tax returns? :lamo
Click to expand...

Until we see them, it remains an unknown.
 
Fletch said:
Why hasnt Chubsie Ubsie subpoenaed him to testify? He has subpoenaed everybody else
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
haymarket said:
Until we see them, it remains an unknown.
Click to expand...

I'll borrow this from Lutherf again: tell us what scheduale on his returns do you expect to find laundered money listed?
 
Athanasius68 said:
1. No reason to.
Click to expand...

That flip reply makes no sense since Trump was the center of the entire sorry episode and his own intent was central to the entire matter.

Unless we see the tax records, no records can be examined.

There was evidence and the Report says so. I quote from the report

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."
Click to expand...

Your short replies are mere partisan nonsense and bear no real sense to the actual events or circumstances and in fact ignore them and treat them lightly.

Mueller gave us at least ten separate instances of Trump obstructing justice and examine the elements of the law and stated clearly examined each was a violation. Over 1000 prosecutors said he gave us a road map to prosecuting Trump in court were he not President and enjoys the protection of the Justice Department decision. Which is NOT part of the Constitution.

Barr is a partisan hack and nothing he says can be accepted as he intentionally and purposely misrepresented the Report. And Mueller wrote him a letter telling him he misrepresented the findings of the report and his actions were contrary to the findings.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
I'll borrow this from Lutherf again: tell us what scheduale on his returns do you expect to find laundered money listed?
Click to expand...


Until we see the return and it is examined by professionals, no one will know.
 
haymarket said:
You do not know that if you do not hear what he might say. And the nature of the actual testimony is far more powerful than a cold word on a page that few ever read.

But the - you knew that and that is what you are afraid of.
Click to expand...

"the nature of the actual testimony".

Translation: You want him to tell Congress what they already know...but to put some spin on it.

Yes. I understand.
 
BuzzwordBingo said:
He was ask a hypothetical question about about a hypothetical situation, of which he offered a hypothetical answer. Last time I checked that does not equate to collusion or any other crime for that matter. So your post is nothing but bunk. Lol
Click to expand...

If you're taking those odds to Vegas, be sure and bet long on "will accept donations from hostile foreign adversary governments".
 
apdst said:
The IRS isn't "professional enough?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence offered that the IRS did anything necessary to test the validity of the returns and their implications to the life of Trump regarding foreign influence. You are making assumptions which no evidence is there to support.
 
haymarket said:
My list is something that nobody here - including your post - has dealt with.

And Trump makes it sure that it is not over. No matter how much you wish it were to protect your boy.
Click to expand...

Trump just throws chum to you TDS’ers, and you guys go nuts before it hits the water!
 
haymarket said:
6 - Not clearly saying that Trump committed crimes regarding the ten instances of obstruction of justice.

9 - Stating that he will NOT testify before Congress and continuing that position.
Click to expand...

These are amazingly enlightened questions meaning nobody is actually asking them.

Is what I am about to tell you my opinion. Some of it is, yes, but only after drawing on conclusions of what I already know to be fact.

1. All Special Counsels and Independent counsels have one thing in common. You can not convene a grand jury and indict a sitting president. The OLC opinion is the policy of the DOJ. If we can't agree on this one thing then there is no use reading any further.

2. The 14 lawyers on Muellers counsel were some of the best you will find. Forget about their political leaning one way or the other. If you can't believe these are some pretty smart guys because they may be Democrats then this post just isn't for you. Just move along because you are just way to closed minded to get it anyway.

3. Mueller and his counsel don't have an affinity for Trump. No problem, they just don't like him. Liking Trump isn't a prerequisite for being on the counsel. Sorry. It just is what it is.

So what kind of Special Counsel prosecutor comes on TV with his confidential report, tells his side of the story, refuses to take any questions and then refuses to testify about the results of his own report, retires immediately and is out the door? A Special Counsel prosecutor with a huge weight on his back and a lot of outside pressure with something to hide. I will explain.

Mueller screwed up big time when he said he can't recommend any charges to the Attorney General because of DOJ policy. That is a lie and Mueller knows its a lie. He is knowingly trying to confuse the public with the OLC policy. Why would he do this.

§ 600.4 Jurisdiction. (a) Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2016-title28-vol2/pdf/CFR-2016-title28-vol2-part600.pdf

Attorney General Barr has publicly stated Mueller can make criminal recommendations so if Mueller was confused about his obligations, he can now submit his changes to the original report and recommend anything he feels is criminal actions. But he won't do that.

When Ken Starr provided his report to Congress, he proposed 11 felony criminal recommendations of which Clinton was found guilty of 3 thus losing his law license. But the report had hundreds of pages of sexual misbehavior's detailing things like Clinton inserting a cigar into Lewinsky's vagina and then putting it in his mouth and saying it taste good. Now none of these hundreds of pages had anything to do with the charges and had no evidence that could be used as criminal recommendation but the cigar incident would inspire countless jokes by late-night comics and was intended to greatly weaken the ability of Bill Clinton to ever again be seen as “presidential.” But it didn't work, The Senate didn't Impeach Clinton and he got re-elected.

Do you know who the author of this dossier of unwarranted use of hundreds of pages of sexual innuendo was. Brett Kavanaugh. Are bells ringing yet?

Now fast forward to today. We have Mueller writing 488 pages of fluff without a single criminal recommendation. Why do you need 488 pages of accusations when 14 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, and forensic accountants, with 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 230 orders for communication records, 13 request to foreign governments for evidence and 500 witnesses, says no evidence exist to make a criminal recommendation?

And just how did CNN have remote reporter vans on location at 5am during the secret FBI raids of Roger Stones home? You starting to pick up on this?

We are all being taken for a ride at our own expense. Mueller couldn't deliver the goods so he did the next best thing. Waited until Barr was on a plane to Alaska and made an unscheduled announcement with an ambiguous report to do nothing but continue what he couldn't do and keep the story going. It has successfully pitted Republican against Democrats and we, the American People, have been suckered into a fight we had nothing to do with.
 
chuckiechan said:
Trump just throws chum to you TDS’ers, and you guys go nuts before it hits the water!
Click to expand...

I see no refutation of any of the items on my list. Nor is there any serious attempt by you.
 
Condor060 said:
These are amazingly enlightened questions meaning nobody is actually asking them.

Is what I am about to tell you my opinion. Some of it is, yes, but only after drawing on conclusions of what I already know to be fact.

1. All Special Counsels and Independent counsels have one thing in common. You can not convene a grand jury and indict a sitting president. The OLC opinion is the policy of the DOJ. If we can't agree on this one thing then there is no use reading any further. .
Click to expand...

That is an opinion and there is no Constitutional provision to support it. That decision has never been challenged and it is about time it was.

And yes, we cannot agree upon that.

2. The 14 lawyers on Muellers counsel were some of the best you will find. Forget about their political leaning one way or the other. If you can't believe these are some pretty smart guys because they may be Democrats then this post just isn't for you. Just move along because you are just way to closed minded to get it anyway.
Click to expand...

We have not heard from them. And they are humans who make decisions and those decisions are not from God and are subject to error.

3. Mueller and his counsel don't have an affinity for Trump. No problem, they just don't like him. Liking Trump isn't a prerequisite for being on the counsel. Sorry. It just is what it is.
Click to expand...

Nothing on my list has anything to do with liking or not liking Trump.

So what kind of Special Counsel prosecutor comes on TV with his confidential report, tells his side of the story, refuses to take any questions and then refuses to testify about the results of his own report, retires immediately and is out the door?
Click to expand...

Which is why Mueller must testify before Congress.

Now fast forward to today. We have Mueller writing 488 pages of fluff without a single criminal recommendation. Why do you need 488 pages of accusations when 14 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, and forensic accountants, with 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 230 orders for communication records, 13 request to foreign governments for evidence and 500 witnesses, says no evidence exist to make a criminal recommendation?
Click to expand...

There was evidence and Mueller laid that out. In fact, here is what the report says about the subject of evidence

"A statement that the evidence did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."


Mueller was clear about that and his findings did not go far enough due to his error of judgement about intent - which Trump himself has now cleared up with his ABC interview showing the intent was there all along.


And just how did CNN have remote reporter vans on location at 5am during the secret FBI raids of Roger Stones home? You starting to pick up on this?
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with the items on my list.
CNN has explained the had a reporter assigned to Stone in case something like this developed.

We are all being taken for a ride at our own expense.
Click to expand...

Expense? The costs of the Mueller probe were covered by forfeiture and fines in the convictions.

It has successfully pitted Republican against Democrats and we, the American People, have been suckered into a fight we had nothing to do with.
Click to expand...

Tribalism in American politics existed before Trump. It has been greatly increased because of Trump.
 
haymarket said:
That flip reply makes no sense since Trump was the center of the entire sorry episode and his own intent was central to the entire matter.

Unless we see the tax records, no records can be examined.

There was evidence and the Report says so. I quote from the report



Your short replies are mere partisan nonsense and bear no real sense to the actual events or circumstances and in fact ignore them and treat them lightly.

Mueller gave us at least ten separate instances of Trump obstructing justice and examine the elements of the law and stated clearly examined each was a violation. Over 1000 prosecutors said he gave us a road map to prosecuting Trump in court were he not President and enjoys the protection of the Justice Department decision. Which is NOT part of the Constitution.

Barr is a partisan hack and nothing he says can be accepted as he intentionally and purposely misrepresented the Report. And Mueller wrote him a letter telling him he misrepresented the findings of the report and his actions were contrary to the findings.
Click to expand...

They are short answers as space constraints would limit am appropriate response-- or the appropriate response had been given previously.

That being said:
There was no conspiracy and there remains nothing that would have justified interviewing Trump about. Is There a center in nothing?

The issue isn't simply prosecution-- it's whether a case for obstruction can be prosecuted successfully. And, in the president's case, a president can be prosecuted for taking angina for which he is constitutionally permitted.

Mueller letter did not dispute Barr's characterization of Barr's letter. It disputed the political impact of it.
 
Athanasius68 said:
They are short answers as space constraints would limit am appropriate response-- or the appropriate response had been given previously.

That being said:
There was no conspiracy and there remains nothing that would have justified interviewing Trump about. Is There a center in nothing?

The issue isn't simply prosecution-- it's whether a case for obstruction can be prosecuted successfully. And, in the president's case, a president can be prosecuted for taking angina for which he is constitutionally permitted.

Mueller letter did not dispute Barr's characterization of Barr's letter. It disputed the political impact of it.
Click to expand...

The issue of prosecuting a case successfully - getting a probably conviction - indeed is a judgement call and at best an educated guess. Over one thousand prosecutors have signed a statement saying they would have prosecuted and countless have stated on the record that they could get a conviction resulting in a finding of GUILTY.

Mueller absolutely disputed the Barr letter and sent him a letter objecting to Barr's characterization. Here is part of it

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions."

“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

That much is very clear and beyond dispute.
 
Last edited:
Fruityfact said:
I think a reasonable expectation was that Mueller have an in person interview with the president. Allowing him to skate by having his lawyers stamp "I do not recall" on written answers is a joke
Click to expand...

Especially when he clearly stated he would be willing to do it under oath.



and again............

 
chuckiechan said:
Trump just throws chum to you TDS’ers, and you guys go nuts before it hits the water!
Click to expand...

You call what Trump has done publicly over 28 months chum?

I think that it is only the Republicans that call it chum, the reality is that he is throwing the whole Orca whale back into the water to kill whatever is left of the ethical, moral, principled and humane people out there.
 
haymarket said:
The issue of prosecuting a case successfully - getting a probably conviction - indeed is a judgement call and at best an educated guess. Over one thousand prosecutors have signed a statement saying they would have prosecuted and countless have stated on the record that they could get a conviction resulting in a finding of GUILTY.

Mueller absolutely disputed the Barr letter and sent him a letter objecting to Barr's characterization. Here is part of it

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions."

“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

That much is very clear and beyond dispute.
Click to expand...

However, those prosecutors would have had additional hurdles to jump-- such as saying Comey was fired for a corrupt purpose when Mueller found no conspiracy.
Barr's judgement was that the prosecution would have not been successful in its own terms.

Regarding the letter: it's like complaining about the preview after the movie was released. Barr accurately described what Mueller concluded-- no conspiracy and no exoneration for obstruction. He was upset about the politics of it all.
 
haymarket said:
Clinton did NOT obtain information from a foreign source. She dealt with an American company and it was 100% legal.
Click to expand...

I agree it seems to be 100% legal, but it did come from foreign national/s.
 
haymarket said:
What lie did Mueller engage in?
Click to expand...

For one, the entire transcript of a conversation spy's listened in on between John Dowd and Michael Flynn's attorney shows that Mueller and his team edited the transcript to only keep in the parts that sounded damaging to the president.

Mueller and his team left out: "if we can, without you having to give up any … confidential information."

There are many others, but it's not worth my time to detail them to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom