Jump to content

Robert Mueller: "If We Had Confidence That the President Did Not Commit a Crime, We Would Have Said So"

fridge
 Share

Recommended Posts

fridge Veteran

fridge

Posted
Posted

This deserves its own thread, as the current Mueller Report thread contradicts the statements of the Special Counsel in the very title.

 

Watch the clip of his public statement here: CSPAN.

 

He later goes on to explain that, "under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldmanfan All Pro

oldmanfan

Posted
Posted

A question:  if you went to your doctor, and he said "if we had confidence you don't have cancer, we would tell you so"  would you conclude you don't have cancer?  Or would you demand more testing, more information, etc?

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fridge Veteran

fridge

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, oldmanfan said:

A question:  if you went to your doctor, and he said "if we had confidence you don't have cancer, we would tell you so"  would you conclude you don't have cancer?  Or would you demand more testing, more information, etc?

 

A great hypothetical, and I'm sure we all know how we would we react to that.

 

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

There are literally 5 threads on this issue. We don't need a new one, with respect :beer: 

 

I respectfully disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted
Just now, fridge said:

I respectfully disagree.

 

We have a Mueller Report thread already. 

We have the DOJ SCO thread. 

We have the Trump/Russia thread. 

We have the House Investigation thread. 

We have the DS thread. 

 

With lots of information and discussion in all of them on this topic.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bray Wyatt Veteran

Bray Wyatt

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

A question:  if you went to your doctor, and he said "if we had confidence you don't have cancer, we would tell you so"  would you conclude you don't have cancer?  Or would you demand more testing, more information, etc?

 

Not a valid comparison, to make it more apples to apples, it would have to have been after months and months of testing and nothing proving you had cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

A question:  if you went to your doctor, and he said "if we had confidence you don't have cancer, we would tell you so"  would you conclude you don't have cancer?  Or would you demand more testing, more information, etc?

 

I'd actually decide my doctor was a quack, and I need a new doctor.

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taro T Veteran

Taro T

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, fridge said:

This deserves its own thread, as the current Mueller Report thread contradicts the statements of the Special Counsel in the very title.

 

Watch the clip of his public statement here: CSPAN.

 

He later goes on to explain that, "under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

 

He further went on to say "... and beyond department policies we were guided by principles of fairness; it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.  So that was justice department policy, those were the principles under which we operated, and from them we concluded that we, would, would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the President committed a crime.  That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President. ..."

 

 This statement would appear to directly contradict the statement from the title of this thread.  So, basically, the press conference resolved absolutely nothing except that the Trump campaign didn't conspire with Russians and Russians did try to interfere.

 

If the SCO was not going to reach a conclusion on obstruction specifically by the President, not sure how much value a statement that they could not "clearly" disprove a negative holds.  Also, curious why you chose to drop the word "clearly" from this thread's title.  It does seem to change the meaning of what Mueller stated.  Especially considering his very next sentence was "(w)e did not however make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."

 

So again, they couldn't clearly prove a negative and didn't make a determination on a positive.  And it would've been unfair to make a determination one way or another anyway. 

 

Guess there is 1 other thing we can be certain of - this press conference didn't change so much as a single person's opinion on "obstruction."

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
  • 7 months later...
All_Pro_Bills Veteran

All_Pro_Bills

Posted
Posted
On 2/12/2022 at 11:19 AM, Doc said:

"A new version of the Mueller report"?  :lol:

The one where our constitutional system's guiding principal of presumption of innocence is replaced by idiots like Mueller declaring if you can't prove you're innocent then you're guilty, of something.  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiberius Hall of Famer

Tiberius

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The one where our constitutional system's guiding principal of presumption of innocence is replaced by idiots like Mueller declaring if you can't prove you're innocent then you're guilty, of something.  

People guilty of crimes still get away with it all the time. You are happy Trump can commit crimes and get away with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Over 29 years of fanhood Hall of Famer

Over 29 years of fanhood

Posted
Posted

How’s that different than

 

“if we had confidence a crime was committed we would tell you so?”

 

seems like political wordsmithing from a shamed incompetent bureaucrat that had one job, tons of resources, and a mandate to find something to skewer the Don and completely ***** it up. 
 

seems like nothing more than sour grapes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...