Blown out of the water
- Thread starter BombadEER
- Start date
OK, I consulted Black's Law Dictionary. I found the definition of "special prosecutor," but I can't seem to find an entry for "special exonerator." It's as though the concept doesn't exist, even in 2019.
Granted, I attended law school back in the days of "manholes" and "man hours," but we were taught that under due process, a person is automatically exonerated absent a conviction, much less a prosecution. Could that be why we don't have "special exonerators?"
Granted, I attended law school back in the days of "manholes" and "man hours," but we were taught that under due process, a person is automatically exonerated absent a conviction, much less a prosecution. Could that be why we don't have "special exonerators?"
Ratcliffe shredded Mueller more thoroughly than a Ronco Vegematic.
Oh shit. I forgot that you were an actual lawyer. This post made me laugh out loud.
Here's a summary of today's Democratic political stunt...
You gonna cry a river all day, or work get some legit Dems in office?
Ouch.
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”
-Robert Mueller
I seem to recall Kenneth Starr reached a determination that Bill Clinton committed a crime. In fact, he used the word "impeachment" eleven times in his report after detailing specific criminal acts committed by Bill Clinton. Mueller's use of impeachment? Not a single one. I wonder why that is? I suspect it has something to do with lack of evidence of a crime actually being committed by Trump.
Clancy Darrow couldn't be more eloquent.
You just worked in the cajun flavor.
I wouldn’t go so far as to presume that.
I don’t believe Starr did his investigation under the same the same OLC opinion and standards.
I went to law school way back when as well.
I was taught that the presumption of innocence isn’t the same thing as exoneration. Yes, Mueller said there is insufficient evidence to prosecute. Therefore, Trump is presumed innocent. I agree that the concept of a “special exonerator” doesn’t exist, and Mueller wasn’t called upon to exonerate. Finally, I also know that prosecutors at times, make statements indicating no (rather than insufficient) evidence of a crime by a particular person was found....which is a statement of exoneration beyond the presumption of innocence.
Ken Starr was/is a piece of garbage.
I’m probably opening myself to being drug into a political discussion beyond the strictly legal statements I’m making. These legal statements shouldn’t be interpreted as where my political opinions lie about the testimony today. Those would probably offend both “sides” of the board here.
I tend to agree in viewing the totality of his existence.
Not going to lie, I am curious. From what I gathered, today was mostly a waste of time with a lot of grandstanding. IMO, Ratliffe was the only one nailing pertinent points, but I am interested in your take. I thought the rest of the major players (Schiff, etc) looked like the partisan hacks that I expected them to be. If anybody “won,” it seems like the Democrats merely lost, maybe giving Trump the win by default. They all looked less than awesome, minus Ratliffe.
Mostly a waste of time....and Mueller signaled it would be well before he testified when he basically stated he was only going to testify within the four corner of what is in the report.
In fact, (and this is the part that is gonna get mocked by both sides...which I’m more than okay with) the only real “winner” today was Mueller and his investigators. Successfully defended the integrity of the investigation and his investigators while refusing to be drug into the political wrangling re: what it means within the larger context of impeach or not. Basically said, I’ve done the job I was tasked with...now read it and do whatever you think your job should be at this point.
Yeah, he had a couple of misstatements which he clarified/corrected. Beyond that, I believe his refusal to provide a narrative beyond confirming citations to the report was a strategy designed to avoid being drug into the political/impeachment discussion...which was the right thing to do and largely successful.
I didn’t get to listen to all of it, but did listen to at least 2/3rds of it....albeit it while also working.
I also switched back and forth between Fox News and CNN on satellite radio during my 1 1/4 hour ride home. If that was all the info I had, I would think the two channels were covering completely different hearings.
Also, I imagine that the majority of Americans haven’t fully read the entire report that was released, and are therefore basing their opinion about what is actually in it upon reports from one of those two media outlets and/or twittersphere poster in sympatico with those two.
Also, I imagine that the majority of Americans haven’t fully read the entire report that was released, and are therefore basing their opinion about what is actually in it upon reports from one of those two media outlets and/or twittersphere poster in sympatico with those two.
Last edited:
The OLC guidance was issued in 2000. He was clear on his recommendation of impeachment hearings though. It's my understanding that Starr could have indicted Clinton but thought it was more appropriate for Congress to take up the matter. Not a fan of Starr, just comparing the two special counsels.
I'm not aware of any DOJ policy that would have prevented Mueller from specifically recommending impeachment hearings if he had strong evidence of a crime. I'm not high on Mueller because of his selection of a partisan team for his core group. I think he did the investigation a disservice by not choosing to make sure it didn't appear partisan. Strzok, Page, and "Attorney 2" killed its credibility IMO.
You know I always respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it. I know where you come from.
Thank you for your insight. I came away unimpressed by Mueller, but I felt going in, he wasn’t going to say anything exciting.
"doesn't know a thing about Fusion GPS"; just about spewed my coffete at that point
Strzok and Page were removed. IMO, Mueller addressed the claimed partisanship of his investigators very well today in a manner that definitely rings true to me based upon my experience. Reading the full report also bolstered its credibility for me. If he had made specific recommendations regarding the inherently political decision of impeachment or not, that would have damaged the credibility for me. The fact that Trump proclaimed it completely exonerated him and Mueller’s refusal today to comment or advocate one way or the other in hearings today also bolsters its credibility for me.
That’s the thing about credibility though. It’s an inherently personal and subjective evaluation based upon many different considerations of the individual.
Whereas, I came away impressed by Mueller primarily due to his refusal to cooperate with Dems “bomb throwing” or saying anything “exciting”.
Very “Joe Friday”ish. (Showing my age with that cultural reference)
I don’t understand this AT ALL. Mueller had to come back from his lunch break, after undoubtedly being counseled by his henchmen that he gaffed what was probably the biggest, most important point of the day, and do a complete 180 on it.
Throughout every bit of testimony he gave, there were repeated....can you repeat the question, Well uh, uh uh uh uh, muh, muh, muh, muh, Any credibility he had was gone within the first 10 minutes.
He did do a great job of staying out of the political mess but mainly because he couldn’t answer a single question about the entire report.
Trey Gowdy put it best, “the person that learned the most about the Mueller Report today was Robert Mueller.”
He didn’t even know about Fusion GPS even though it was listed in the report.
He was as lost as last year’s Easter Egg and would have tapped out if he could have.
I said in advance that absolutely no one was likely to agree with me...and that I was good with that.
Not gonna try to convince anyone of anything here. It would be a waste of time.
Mueller is a good cop that wasn’t tasked with and didn’t go into this with an intent of “getting” anyone.
Just the facts...not opinions...in his report....kinda pissed off both sides.
IMO.
Really? He wasn't tasked with prosecuting people associated with election interference by the Russians? If that's the case, why did we need a special counsel? Congress could have done the job if there was no intent of prosecuting anyone.
Except that Mueller initially said he couldn't indict because of OLC guidance in agreement with a Dem in session 1, but then completely walked that statement back in session 2. In context, the first interaction screamed partisanship while the second interaction seemed like an uh oh, that's not what I've been on record as saying previously, so I better take that back.
To the layperson, he's wishy washy as hell, letting himself blow where the political winds prevail.
And he indicted people associated with election interference and issued a report saying there was insufficient evidence to indict and prosecute anyone in the Trump administration for that.
1st paragraph...that’s one interpretation coming from someone that has already stated herein that his credibility had been destroyed before he even testified. I interpreted that as someone correcting a misstatement.
2nd paragraph...I’m not a layperson, and my interpretation is what you call wishy washy, I call nonpartishanship.
This board is completely binary with regards to this issue, but your point is taken.
His indictment of Russians is interesting. One has answered the complaint. We'll see how that plays out.
I don't see that Mueller has made any attempt to drive home your second point. That adds to his lack of credibility and appearance of partisanship IMO.
It’s right there in his report.....INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE on conspiracy/collusion. That is a very specific legal finding with very specific meaning.
I don’t think it is his role to drive home that point. His report was to the AG....who made the decision to release or not. In fact driving home that point would be evidence of partisanship and politicism of the investigation IMO.
No.
Especially when it was a merely a yes to a not entirely clear question....and he clearly and expressly made the clarification.
“I’d like to ask you,” he said. “The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the O.L.C. opinion”—a reference to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel—“stating that you cannot indict a sitting President. Correct?”
“That is correct,” Mueller said
Last edited:
