Redacted Mueller report
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, July 3, 2025 23:09
VIEWED: 14174
PAGE 4 of 14
Quote:I think he put that in there to "poison pill" the report, since he couldn't find anything indictable.
Originally posted by second:
The key punch-pulling passage in the Mueller report occurs on page 2 of volume 2, or page 214 of 448, where Mueller says that “we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes.”
The sentence is so shocking I had to read it several times. Mueller is saying that his team thought about — and rejected — going through Trump’s conduct using ordinary Justice Department standards to decide if he had violated the law.
That’s more or less what the public thought Mueller was going to do.
Mueller’s stated reason is more shocking still: He wanted to be “fair” to Trump because a president cannot be indicted under Justice Department policy, and without a trial Trump couldn’t “seek to clear his name.”
The president of the United States could, of course, use the news media to defend himself. He could also be impeached by the House and defend himself in the Senate. Mueller’s “fairness” logic is contorted to the point of being almost bizarre.
We may never know for sure what Mueller was thinking when he held back from announcing Trump committed crimes, despite having evidence to support that conclusion. The leading explanation, though, should be the adage ably expressed by Ralph Waldo Emerson, and memorably repeated by Omar on “The Wire”: “You come at the king, you best not miss.”
www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-19/mueller-report-pulls-pun
ches-on-if-trump-obstructed-justice-why
I mean, if he was so worried about Trump not being able to "clear his name" he simply should have asked for that to be redated. But this was exactly what Comey did that pissed off so many Democrats .... air a list of possible misdeeds and then say ..."nah, not gonna indict".
It's like Trey Gowdy said: a good prosecutor should indict and shut up or not indict and shut up.
I really think that Mueller was interested in only two things: "getting" Trump on any statute whatsoever (or providing ammunition for a political process should that fail) and protecting the FBI.
There is so much missing from the report, so many interviews that weren't conducted, so much evidence that it lacking, computers that weren't examined ... it doesn't look to me like Mueller was interested in finding out "the truth" but in proving a crime. A despite the fact that he indicted so many people over process crimes to squeeze as much as he could out of them, he couldn't even do that.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
At National Review, the Mueller report has confirmed that Trump gives orders and then his aides decide which of his orders to take seriously and which to ignore:
. . . The peculiar willingness of Trump’s people to ignore or disobey him is a blessing and a curse. But more than anything it is a warning sign that ought to be taken seriously by anyone in Congress or in the executive branch who is in any way in a position to help prepare our government to handle serious emergencies.
It is not hard to see why Trump’s senior staff treat him as they do. They understand better than any of us that in some crucial respects Trump is a special-needs president, and that his distinct disabilities as a decision maker have to be accommodated in some extraordinary ways to prevent them from exacting terrible costs. But these extraordinary accommodations are unlikely to be sustainable in truly extraordinary circumstances.
More at www.nationalreview.com/corner/another-warning-sign-2/
Only a few Republicans at National Review took the more sober approach that even if the report didn’t uncover criminal acts, it sure uncovered lots of behavior that ought to be inexcusable in a president.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Show me a rich politician and I'll show you somebody who's least embarrassing sexual endeavor was being peed on.
Is there ANYTHING you wouldn't excuse Trump from doing?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Only a few Republicans at National Review took the more sober approach that even if the report didn’t uncover criminal acts, it sure uncovered lots of behavior that ought to be inexcusable in a president.
That's just them noting it, they aren't going to DO anything about it...
https://frontier.yahoo.com/news/mueller-report-shows-fake-news-0745002
89.html
Irony, man...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
“we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes”
Who was this 'we'? Are there names attached to 'we'? Because ... why? Was there some legal reasoning laid out for examination? When did this supposedly happen? Was it before or after they got to the bottom of the barrel?
It sounds fishy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
6 % of the report was redacted.
Dems were all for redactions when Ken Starr issued his report on Bill Clinton.
100% hypocrites are Dems.
To make the case, Starr left little, if anything, to the imagination. So the Dems changed the rules, and now Barr is working with the template the Dems made after the Clinton / Lewinsky fiasco.
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3bm3b/frustrated-you-cant-read-th
e-mueller-report-you-can-blame-ken-starr
Aside from the fact there was no collusion, no obstruction, and the actual crimes were committed by the previous admin, the Hillary campaign, and those who were doing the investigation on Trump, the Dems anger should be directed squarely at - THEMSELVES.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Show me a rich politician and I'll show you somebody who's least embarrassing sexual endeavor was being peed on.
Is there ANYTHING you wouldn't excuse Trump from doing?
Sure.
But I certainly don't give a shit what he does behind closed doors with consenting adults.
As if you're some kind of Puritan, Wishy.
For shame.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump didn't collude, didn't obstruct, and was fully compliant w/ the investigation. He didn't issue any executive privilege, didn't deny any access for interviews, despite the fact that this was 100% an political hit job, by the establishment and former admin, and completely illegal from it's origins of a fake , paid for political dossier.
So yeah, Trump tweets mean things. Wish he wouldn't.
Not worthy of impeachment, by any sane measure.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Trump didn't collude, didn't obstruct, and was fully compliant w/ the investigation. He didn't issue any executive privilege
You didn't even bother to read the highlights, did you brainless??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
But I certainly don't give a shit what he does behind closed doors with consenting adults.
Only when it suits your purposes, right?
If Hillary had a normal affair you idiots would be screaming from the rooftops, right hypocrite?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME