Holy crap! Did Mueller trick Barr into giving him permission

[Ilsa]

to articulate clearly whether trump should be charged?

The repubs, trump and barr have turned on Mueller, claiming he didn't do his work, didn't complete it, and give an opinion. Their criticism opens the door for Mueller to state clearly that trump should be charged?



I'm watching TRMS.

[leftieNanner]

1. Rachel just talked about this!

Go Mueller!

[Irishxs]

2. +1

[Ilsa]

3. Yeah, I just edited my post to say

I am watching TRMS.

Barr, Flood, Trump, and the gop have screwed the pooch criticizing the report, saying Mueller failed to provide a recommendation about not charging or charging trump. It opens the door for Mueller to say, "Okay, so you are saying I have that option. Here's my opinion and recomnendation:..."

[Irishxs]

7. 👏👏👏

[Volaris]

17. Lol buncha dumb mutherfuckers...

My sister's correct :
'If these clowns were HALF as smart as they THINK they are, we'd be in real trouble as a nationstate. As it stands, I think we'll do just FINE.'

Heh. Republicans=Dumb.

[Texin]

30. I saw the same broadcast, and I don't think that's what Mueller stated in the report.

What he actually said is that he is precluded by DOJ policy from being able to indict/charge a "sitting POTUS*" with a crime, therefore he did not believe it was reasonable to make an accusation against said POTUS* when the accused does not have a means to be exonerated legally. He's basically saying "my hands were tied" by DOJ guidelines.

It's as if he was waving a big, flashy flag at the legislators and the DOJ telling them that this policy makes any such Special Prosecutor or Independent Prosecutor irrelevant. Why go to the trouble of undertaking such an investigation when there is no repercussion for the primary target of such an investigation? Investigations can go on indefinitely, but if at the end of the day the only people you can prosecute are the supporting players who only carried out the dirty business for the Big Cheese?

If anything, it's as if he was pointing at this DOJ guideline and saying, "if you don't like the result", change the provisions of the "guideline(s)". Basically, this provision gives any sitting POTUS immunity from prosecution regardless of party. The only recourse for Congress is to bring Articles of Impeachment forward and to remove him/her if they are able to secure a conviction from the Senate.

[Vinnie From Indy]

31. Well stated!

Cheers!

[RVN VET71]

38. Rachel seems to be the first person to see it.

Mueller had made it clear that the only reason he seek an indictment against Trump was because of standing DOJ policy. But Barr told the senate that the "snitty" Mueller could and should have put up or shut up, either indict the president or stop the investigation -- meaning, obviously, that that DOJ policy did not bar (sorry for the pun) him from indicting. In other words, Mueller apparently, does have and always has had the authority to prefer charges against Trump!

I'm not holding my breath waiting for it, but it will be very interesting, like historically interesting, to see how Mueller responds to questions from Schiff/Nadler et al about this newly granted authority -- which he received straight from the heavily jowled droopy dog face of the Attorney General!

[empedocles]

5. Rachel used Amy K's subtle questioning of barr, to open up a direct

Congressional path to directly communicate with Mueller. Barr directly said, 'ask Mueller'!.

There is a report now saying that the Dems ae communicating directly with the Mueller team. Rachel then used her massive megaphone to help make this a big issue.

[pangaia]

13. Imagine Rachael as a Senator !!!!!!!!!!!

[Volaris]

19. In my wettest dreams , she would decide she's made quite enough corporate monies,

thank you very much, and I will now decide that I will be Speaker of the House.

And at any time, Olbermann can be made white house communications director, and that will ALSO be Just Fine lol.

[pangaia]

24. Olbermann as Press Sec. Can you imagine that???

[manor321]

4. I've been asking this all day

Has Barr's and Flood's attacks given permission for Mueller to say under oath whether he would have charged Trump with a crime if he wasn't president?

Now, it might very well be that Mueller won't testify outside of anything in his report. But, IMHO, this development at least raises the possibility it might happen.

[empedocles]

10. Rachel suggests that barr is now in a 'box.'

Hard to tell whether barr's competence is over-rated; or overwhelmed by trump's ignorant orders to barr.

[It did seem that after barr's initial letter on 'the Mueller Report' - barr quickly issued, in an unseemly way, several more letters, that may have been ordered by the genius trump, which didn't go well].

[babylonsister]

15. His competence does come into question; for

all those who sang his praises, he doesn't seem that bright to me.

[2naSalit]

20. Same here...nt

[onetexan]

27. Thats why i call him LOW BARR

Intelligence clearly wasted on a man with seemingly low self esteem, hence why he chose to kowtow to a moronic &grossly unfit DOTUS.

[Ilsa]

12. Smarty pants! So glad you're

a democrat! I love having quick thinkers like you sorting this out. I'm not quick enough to work through those outcomes.

(I call lots of smart people "smarty pants." It's definitely meant as a compliment.)

[watoos]

6. Also Klobuchar was told by Barr

To ask Mueller for Trump’s taxes, so she did.

[Ilsa]

9. I saw that!

Klobuchar used her end-of-the-day rapid-fire questions to hoodwink Barr. Yeah!

Don't mess with these strategic thinkers/former prosecutors!

[calimary]

14. Pretty shrewd, I must say.

I don't often see shrewdness and cunning from our Dems. But Klobuchar and Harris, too, were pretty doggone exemplary yesterday.

[onecaliberal]

8. Senator Klobuchar wrote to mueller today and asked some questions.

Including if Mueller has seen the dump tax returns.

[empedocles]

11. Loved Rachel's characterizations of Amy's questions and follow-up letter.

[onecaliberal]

16. It was great. I love how Jabba the Hutt told the senator to ask mueller, and she did just that.

[Hoyt]

18. Not sure how that helps. Mueller is likely to give the same ambiguous answers he gave in his report.

More importantly, Mueller was pretty clear he found no evidence of collusion/conspiracy, although I'm not sure he tried very hard. But that's the one charge that might cause GOPers to budge.

Obstruction isn't going to accomplish anything, even if Mueller says, "Yeah, he weren't Prez, we would have locked his ass up." GOPers will just say, "Well, he is Prez." Now, if he said, "trump's obstruction kept me from finding evidence." But, I don't think he will. He's a company, by the book, man.

If Mueller wanted to nail trump, he should have been more direct and less wishy-washy in his report.

[watoos]

21. Mueller found 4 to 6 examples of criminal obstruction of justice.

Mueller didn't find enough evidence to charge criminal conspiracy but he listed the reasons that he didn't have enough evidence to prosecute.

Of course there was evidence of collusion, collusion isn't a crime though.

[Hoyt]

25. Obstruction isn't going to take trump down. We all watched him obstruct, but GOPers don't care.

[euphorb]

22. No, Mueller did not say he found no evidence of collusion/conspiracy.

He said there was not sufficient evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., sufficient to convict). But there was certainly plenty of evidence short of that demanding standard.

[Hoyt]

26. He needed to say, "Lock the MFer up." Not, "I can't find sufficient evidence."

Last edited Fri May 3, 2019, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Unless Mueller comes through in next week or so with a direct statement that trump and his kids are criminally corrupt, this is over because Mueller wimped out.

[patphil]

33. NRA has another meaning

Not Really American

[Hoyt]

37. Yep, and Mueller is probably a member.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. Mueller never was and is not a wimp. Period. . . . nt

[uponit7771]

29. +1, who told Mueller the standard was reasonable doubt vs preponderance of evidence?!

That's the one question I'd be asking Mueller

[euphorb]

39. He would have learned it in law school, if not before.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the universal standard in criminal law. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard in civil cases.

[uponit7771]

41. Isn't only preponderance of evidence needed to bring criminal charges? tia

[euphorb]

43. Prosecutors generally don't bring charges unless they have sufficient evidence to convict.

[Texin]

35. He was referring to the primary charge: that of willfully and knowingly conspiring with Russians.

That's what he indicated he did not have sufficient evidence. He indicated that were numerous other instances of criminal wrongdoing, but that DOJ guidelines about "not indicting a sitting POTUS" precluded him for making such allegations within an indictment(s) because the accused would have no legal way to remedy the accusations of wrongdoing because he would not have a legal mechanism to do so.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. Mueller plays long game & maybe you forget the 14 criminal referrals Mueller made, only 2 are known.

Mueller doesn't lose in court.

And your premise in your first sentence is wrong.

[Hoyt]

44. Not hard to always win in court, if you only prosecute when there is no doubt whatsoever.

[mountain grammy]

23. I sure as hell hope so.

[mr_lebowski]

28. Rachel and I are so often on teh same page ... here's me, last night at 6pm ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142310470#post10

[patphil]

32. Yeah, I think Barr stepped in it.

He has basically double-dog-dared Mueller to defend his report.
I expect to see Mueller fill that empty chair in front of the House soon.

[shanti]

34. Hah!

Checkmate, mfer!

[Texin]

36. Mueller refers to copious evidence of criminal wrongdoing and he has referred indictments

to the pertinent jurisdictions in which those indictments can be prosecuted. There are several sealed indictments that I'm fairly certain are not being prosecuted at this time because they involve tRump himself. They're subject to statute of limitations that may run out depending on whether he steals yet another term.

The actual Special Prosecutor investigation dealt primarily with the matter of possible criminal conspiracy with Russia to interrupt and interfere with the election results. Mueller indicated that this was the area in which he could not make an indictment, but there were other ancillary instances of evidence of criminal activities. It seems to me that Mueller was just saying that because of the DOJ rule of not prosecuting a sitting POTUS, he was leaving this in limbo, i.e., not fully exonerating him nor fully accusing him.

[MadDAsHell]

45. Mueller is a Rethuglican. I doubt he tricked Barr into anything. nt