US Politics May 2019: " If I was burned at the stake, I would ask for a mirror"

nothing but love for his good buddy Barr too, assholes of a feather.

Guys what exactly were you expecting from this presser

Him to deliver a message that differed from his report, so everyone could ask why it wasn't in the report?

i may have missed it, but did he say anything indicating his willingness to testify in front of a committee? it is already ridiculous that his team never interviewed trump as part of his investigation, and it will be just as ridiculous if he never takes any questions from congress on 2 years of work that clearly showed trump covering shit up over and over

he doesn't have anything to say to Congress that's not in the report

so please don't subpoena him

I think there's still value in having him testify in public because he could then spoonfeed his findings on camera, which somehow makes them more "real". But he's obviously not revealing anything new that we don't already know.

I feel like he's probably thinking "I set up a clear case of obstruction for you while being constricted by current DOJ guidelines, ain't my fault if you all bury it"

Him appearing could be helpful if only to throw cold water on GOP Congressmen who try to misappropriate his statements during a hearing or clarify any statements that weren't clear.

But lets face it, when 50 million people read a report that would have ruined anybody else and proclaim EXONERATION, it's a losing battle

Congress would have to subpoena him; otherwise, he made clear he's going fishing for the rest of his days.

Since the report is so dense and detailed, the response from anyone who doesn't want to acknowledge his findings has basically been TLDR, and we have accepted that as a valid position. Putting him on record in front of cameras makes that less tenable.

should have released the report as a tweetstorm

This is more or less what I expected to hear from him today, but Moodles and Neanderthal otm about the infuriating nature of watching this whole thing play out.

I hope they do subpoena him

when 50 million people read a report that would have ruined anybody else and proclaim EXONERATION, it's a losing battle

The number of people who actually read the report is closer to 50 than 5,000,000. The people who proclaim EXONERATION wouldn't read it if you put guns to their heads. Their entire worldview depends on never actually taking in information that might force them to consider that their leader is wrong or bad in any way.

he doesn't have anything to say to Congress that's not in the report

i would like someone to ask him "if DOJ policies didn't prevent the indictment of a sitting president, would you have recommended an obstruction of justice charge?", or something along those lines.

i suppose he would say he wouldn't answer hypotheticals

btw, this DOJ policy on not indicting sitting presidents - was that in place during Nixon?

i think he should have said that he would have prosecuted obstruction were he not bound by DOJ guidelines. this implication stuff--laying out the evidence but saying it's not his role to come to a conclusion if he can't prosecute--just leaves a ton of room for anyone who wants to claim exoneration

It's implied in his statement, though -- unless you want him declaring it forthrightly, which he won't because #GOPpolitician

mr rogers was the last good republican

I assume so KM, as RMN was famously an "unindicted co-conspirator"

i would like someone to ask him "if DOJ policies didn't prevent the indictment of a sitting president, would you have recommended an obstruction of justice charge?", or something along those lines.

i suppose he would say he wouldn't answer hypotheticals

― i will never make a typo ever again (Karl Malone), Wednesday, May 29, 2019 11:37 AM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

exactly.

if he's publishing the report he is already giving the public something that will affect their view of a person he isn't going to charge. he's already in this kind of water--an ordinary prosecutor doesn't publish evidence of a case he won't bring to court. taking that next step just seems like a technicality he made up.

I think in the aftermath of the Starr report they changed the special prosecutor law to make it the special counsel, and that change involve the SCO not being permitted to suggest any charges. I also think this is why Mueller is not explicitly stating THIS IS NOW CONGRESSES RESPONSIBILITY TO IMPEACH RIGHT NOW.

Hopefully Pelosi and friends caught his not too subtle inference that it is up to Congress to carry this forward.

Except the effect will be the opposite. "Look, people, you got the investigation, you got the report, you've had endless additional partisan investigations, you now have Mueller's public statement. No do-overs. Case closed."

If Trump and Barr's DOJ are allowing this, it's intended to be INSTEAD of testifying. Not a prelude to testimony.

would mueller have made this kind of evasive statement if he found evidence of a crime other than obstruction? if the conspiracy was a cut and dry thing--or if trump was actually being blackmailed and it affected his policymaking--would mueller say, "i can not come to the conclusion of whether this is something i can charge, but here is the evidence"? what if trump had ordered the murder of michael cohen?

is it just the ambiguity of the charge of obstruction, or would this have been the result WHATEVER he found?

i know you lurk, mueller

if trump had ordered the murder of michael cohen i'd be okay with it i think tbh

are you trying to give treezy agita

if my post gave treezy agita i'd be okay with it i think tbh

xxp that would be a good question to ask him, if only they could...

was wondering, can the DOJ block him from testifying once he's out of office?

I think it's fair to assert at this point that the only effectual moves are those that accelerate us towards the cliff's edge.

idk my mind didn't change this morning, but he made it clear that he would've indicted this mook if he weren't POTUS. The quote: "If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

Now it's back to Congress and its foot dragging.

Congress being way more infuriating than Mueller here.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/445944-booker-calls-for-congress-to-begin-impeachment-proceedings?#_=_

I can recall stating about a half dozen times prior to the release of Mueller's report that I didn't think Trump could be removed from office over obstruction alone. The House democrats now have to decide if a failed impeachment is worth mobilizing over. They need to push as hard as they can on investigations on every front, but it still seems like passing articles of impeachment would fizzle badly politically.

I know you didn't make the analogy, but comparing Trump in May 2019 to Bill Clinton in December 1998 -- a reelected president with a 60 percent and climbing approval rating -- is an example of overcorrection. And guess what? Clinton and the party were so scarred by impeachment that they didn't use him on the 2000 campaign trail at all.

True, but Trump's crimes are part of what Republicans love about him

The Starr investigation resulted in Clinton having to publicly apologize for lying to the country for months on end--something I doubt we'll ever see Trump do.

He should be impeached to set a precedent for what lind of behavior is acceptable from presidents. He should be impeached even though it won’t lead to his removal from office

Also it needs to be done as a loud counternarrative to the administration’s notion that he has been “exonerated” by mueller

he should be impeached because when the dog is shitting all over thanksgiving dinner, someone should at least express the view that it is wrong

(i know i have used that analogy before. i am sorry.)

how often did Puffy shit on your turkey growing up?

The Starr investigation resulted in Clinton having to publicly apologize for lying to the country for months on end--something I doubt we'll ever see Trump do.

― Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes),

hence why most analogies to the boom-boom '90s are overstated

how often did Puffy shit on your turkey growing up?

0, but tbh i think i spent a lot of time thinking "if i shit on this dinner, is anyone really going to stop me?" at thanksgiving dinners as a kid. never did it, but even then i knew that someone should have stopped me if i tried it

What Robert Mueller basically did was return an impeachment referral. Now it is up to Congress to hold this president accountable.

We need to start impeachment proceedings. It's our constitutional obligation.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) May 29, 2019

Mueller’s statement makes clear what those who have read his report know: It is an impeachment referral, and it’s up to Congress to act. They should.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) May 29, 2019

Ok, now we just need to get a bunch of house reps to run for president so they can agree

Even Beto agrees...

There must be consequences, accountability, and justice. The only way to ensure that is to begin impeachment proceedings.

— Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) May 29, 2019

Every time you read "impeached" add "and exonerated" because that's what the Senate is going to do (unjustifiably, but they'll do it).
Impeached and exonerated. The "exonerated" will be timed by McConnell for maximum election impact.
The best option is to slow roll impeachment so that the Senate doesn't have time to exonerate.

what I dont understand about impeachment is that once you decide to impeach on subject matter x (ie russia obstruction) can you add the evidence of all the other fucking crimes thats going to come out in the future or are you locked into x?

Articles of impeachment are introduced for specific crimes