Mueller Investigation

Mueller All But Begs America To Read His Actual Report

As the special counsel steps down, he wants to make sure we understand why he won't accuse President Donald Trump of obstruction.

|

In an unexpected and brief public statement, Special Counsel Robert Mueller publicly announced he was shutting down his office, resigning from his position, and retiring back to private life, making it clear that his involvement in the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election was over.

In a speech at the Justice Department, Mueller reiterated the conclusions of his investigation, saying, "We chose the words carefully and the report speaks for itself." He said he did not plan to testify about the report and any testimony would not go beyond the report's contents.

But he did want to make it very, very clear what the report actually concluded, and why it said what it said, particularly about whether President Donald Trump obstructed the effort to investigate whether any crimes had been committed.

"If we had confidence that the president had not committed a crime, we would have said so," Mueller explained. They did not, and so the report does not actually clear the president of concerns that he obstructed the investigation. Rather, the Justice Department's position is that the president cannot be charged with crimes while he is in office.

Because the president cannot be charged with crimes, Mueller concluded it would be unfair to accuse Trump of crimes knowing that there would not be anything like a criminal trial by which Trump could defend himself. The remedy here is political; it is up to Congress to determine whether to respond to any findings that could indicate potentially inappropriate or illegal behavior by Trump that would justify impeachment proceedings.

All of this is already in the report, and anybody who has actually read the section on obstruction can see that Mueller lays out conduct by Trump that could be seen as illegal. When the report was initially released, I was actually surprised at how clearly Mueller described obstructive behavior, particularly when Trump fired FBI Director James Comey as well as Trump's several attempts to shut down or limit the special investigation. If Mueller's hands were not tied by the nature of Trump's position, it seems very, very clear that there would have been a recommendation for charges. Mueller wants to make it understood that there are specific legal reasons why he did not accuse Trump of obstruction, not because he believes Trump is innocent.

This section of the report has been animating Michigan Rep. Justin Amash's public calls for consideration of impeachment proceedings against Trump. He got the message again today:

Beyond that refresher of the contents of the report, Mueller also took the opportunity to remind us that the report is very firm that Russian interests did attempt to interfere with the results of the 2016 election. The report reminds us there have been several indictments of Russian nationals for hacking the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign and another set of indictments of Russians accused of conspiracy, wire fraud, and identity theft in various campaigns to manipulate public opinion.

"The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system," Mueller said. "They needed to be investigated and understood. And that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office."

As in the report, Mueller treated those indictments as something completely separate from Trump's behavior and did not suggest that Trump or members of his campaign played any role in that Russian meddling.

Trump tweeted his own response, one that misunderstands just about everything Mueller said:

Here's the White House's official response via Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders:

"The Special Counsel has completed the investigation, closed his office, and has closed the case. Mr. Mueller explicitly said that he has nothing to add beyond the report, and therefore, does not plan to testify before Congress. The report was clear—there was no collusion, no conspiracy—and the Department of Justice confirmed there was no obstruction. Special Counsel Mueller also stated that Attorney General Barr acted in good faith in his handling of the report. After two years, the Special Counsel is moving on with his life, and everyone else should do the same."

Read Mueller's statement for yourself here.

NEXT: The Supreme Court Case That Could Change Immigrant Representation in U.S. Courts

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sorry, Mueller, I’ve been burned too many times. I am not reading this until the whole series is finished.

    1. If it’s like Dune his son will finish it and ruin the whole plot.

    2. I see no detailed evidence in his public statement that Mueller even read the Mueller report. Pointing out that everyone else should read the evidence in the Mueller report is just a lazy way out. If there isn’t a tweet or a powerpoint summary then nothing he says can possibly be credible. And now he’s unemployed and that’s supposed to make him more credible? And he looks rather like a walking prune so one wonders whether he is even regular enough to be able to have regular opinions.

      Obviously I have to believe Trump. He issued tweets. He is employed. He is our leader and the only real leader that libertarians have ever had or could ever have.

    3. Mueller’s comments sound more like cover for his friend Comey who may have to actually answer for the garbage dossier and it’s use to spy on Carter Page.

  2. OT: The saddest, most pathetic member of “Libertarian” Twitter just had another outburst.

    https://twitter.com/alimhaider/status/1133219597098901504

    1. “We will reorient society to the moral law” sounds pretty chilling, doesn’t it?

      And no, I can’t see why children should be kept away from drag queens. That kind of shit is said by people that think children should be kept away from The Origin of Species.

      1. No reason to keep children away from drag queens in public libraries that had assault on minor convictions?

        1. How about drag queens who don’t assault people? Is that okay for kids to be exposed to?

          1. When did I say it wasnt. Dear God h
            Jeff, come up with a salient point. The point of my comment was that the drag queens on question were pushing back on background checks for people part of the drag queen hour. We require checks of teachers and daycare workers but not for these events put of fear the checks would harm the drag queen. Fuck the kids, right Jeff? The group pushed back on required background checks stating they ran their own. Outside investigations found 2 with violations against minors. So why not enforce the outside checks?

            You are such a fucking low thought idiot sometimes.

            1. Pedo Jeffy is very much for fucking children. If it satisfies the unholy appetites of child predator illegal, then all the better in Jeffy’s sick little pedo mind.

              There is nothing too horrid or vile that Pedo Jeffy wouldn’t gleefully subject an innocent child to it.

              1. Oh fuck off Shithead.
                Don’t you have more Democrats to murder?

                1. As many as rapists you have to import.

            2. Perhaps you could provide any sort of verification for any of these claims.

              I’m not going to just take your word for it.

              1. No one cares what you take you fucking pedo importing loser. Take the fucking hint bitch.

              2. I love how you wander into these threads and admit you are a fucking ignorant asshole Jeff. God damn. I gave you explicit information. Want the city too? Houston. Do you need more?

                How about trying to educate yourself instead of admitting to being a lazy ignorant dumb fuck?

                1. I gave you explicit information.

                  What you gave me is a nice story. You didn’t provide any sort of verification or proof for any of your claims. Why is it my job to do your homework for you? Maybe if you laid off the insults and provided, oh I don’t know, A SOURCE, it would help your case.

                  1. We all know it wouldn’t. You would just misstate what he said again and then pretend you were right all along. Or call him a liar.

                    We’ve all dealt with you before.

                    1. Shoo pest. I’m talking to Jesse here.

                    2. No, you’re getting embarrassed by me, and ignoring what Jesse is saying.

                  2. Jeff… dear slow imbecilic jeff… national review. Andrew McCarthy has dozens of articles on the subject. Try educating yourself dumbfuck. I cant be more clear. I’ve pointed you to a trove of articles discussing it. Now prove you arent a lazy ignorant dumbass and educate yourself. McCarthy quotes cases, theblaw, and footnotes in the report. Educate yourself dear. Stop proving you choose ignorance.

                    1. Thought this was a comment for below. But Jeff is still fucking retarded. I gave you Houston, transgender, and library. Now try to figure out how Google works dummy.

                  3. No source needed actually. It was Houston, it was on the local news and in the local papers. What he said is the truth.

                    You don’t seem to put up sources. Like holding people to higher standards than you use?

            3. And no I don’t find it unreasonable to believe that certain people would demand background checks on drag queens *just because they are drag queens* and not because they think they have any legitimate suspicion against those particular individuals.

              1. Of course, because you’re an SJW idiot and a rapist importer. You think the worst of the people who try to stop you.

                1. Oh fuck off Tulpa. Go crawl back into the hole where you came from.

                  1. Or what jeff? You’ll bitch more?

                    You’re a rapist importing SJW piece of shit. What now bitch?

                    1. You’re a lying narcissist who gives all of Reason a bad name.

                      And as I correctly predicted, you’re going to shit all over this thread too, to satisfy your raging narcissism, just like you shit on so many other threads.

                    2. So yes, you’ll just bitch more.

              2. THEY WERE WORKING WITH CHILDREN YOU STUPID FUCKING ASSHOLE.

                We require teachers. We require daycare workers.

                My god man. Stop saying stupid things.

                1. Okay, and?

                  Once again I would not put it past certain people to hold drag queens to a different, higher standard, than everyone else, just because they are scared of drag queens.

                  In fact, don’t you complain right here at Reason how letting trans women using the ‘wrong’ public bathroom poses a great risk to little girls everywhere, even though there is zero proof that this is at all an issue?

                  1. Can you explain why the world is obligated to humor delusions?

                    I do not care if a tranny thinks they are a man or a woman. But I sure as hell won’t play along with that delusion.

                    1. I do not care if a tranny thinks they are a man or a woman. But I sure as hell won’t play along with that delusion.

                      Then don’t. I don’t care that you don’t care, just as long as you aren’t trying to use the coercive power of the state to “reorient society to the moral law”.

                  2. “Once again I would not put it past certain people to hold drag queens to a different, higher standard, than everyone else, just because they are scared of drag queens.”

                    AND you stupid asshole, they’re being held to THE SAME STANDARD you blithering fucking idiot.

                  3. How is it a higher standard for drag queens Jeff? They weren’t forced into background checks like most people who work with children. They were lower standards Jeff. My God man. Keep digging that hole dummy.

                    1. So chemjeff is an apologist for pedophiles just like Weigel?

                      Somehow I completely missed that, but I’m not the least bit surprised.

              3. I don’t demand background checks because I’m a parent and as such, I have the prerogative on who my children are around. I won’t allow my children around creepy perverts. If you’re the type to put your children’s life in the hands of freaks just to prove how super woke you are, that’s your problem.

            4. Asking a question that could provoke you to narrow the topic to the part that’s actually interesting seems pretty salient to me. You don’t seem to want that, though. You’d rather redirect back to the boring part.

          2. IT’S NOT OK ON THE TAXPAYERS DIME!!!!

            You want kids to hear these sexually & psychologically damaged people read to them, you pay for it!

          3. I don’t see any need to expose my kids to drag queens anymore than I see the need to expose my kids to strippers, male or female, pornstars or dominatrixes or swingers.

            Jeez there is plenty of time for my kids to find out that some people think sex is so boring that perverting it is the only way to make it interesting.

    2. Well well well. So here is more of the story behind this particular controversy.

      https://www.houstoniamag.com/articles/2019/3/19/drag-queen-story-time-houston-public-library-sylvester-turner-freed-montrose

      Contra Jesse’s assertions:
      1. The drag queen group didn’t refuse to submit to background checks, it was the library’s management that refused to impose its existing policy on the drag queen volunteers. So it wasn’t the whiny drag queens demanding to be treated as special snowflakes after all.
      2. The controversy only started when there was a local news segment on the program that had nothing at all to do with sexual assault or anything like that, and a local city councilman saw the news report and used it to condemn those filthy drag queens corrupting the youth of America. They were protesting the drag queens not because one was convicted of sexual assault, but just because they were drag queens. The revelation of one member having been convicted of sexual assault only came months later.

      So yes, it does seem like an example of both bureaucratic incompetence at the library for not enforcing their own policies, and an example of local conservatives using protests, lawsuits and grandstanding, desiring to “reorient society to the moral law” as one might put it.

      1. So you agree the drag queens were held to a lower standard. You also finally figured out how to use Google. Congrats Jeff. You are learning! Bow do this for every topic you wade into before proving yourself fucking ignorant.

        Glad I could help.

        1. Jesse,
          You wrote above:

          “the drag queens on question were pushing back on background checks for people part of the drag queen hour.”

          Based on what I’ve read, this is a big fat lie, designed to push a narrative that the drag queens were trying to evade background checks for some potentially sinister reason.

          Why did you lie about this, Jesse?

          Or perhaps my source is incorrect, and you’d rather like to correct the record with a source of your own. Why don’t you do that instead, Jesse?

  3. So are we done with this or not?

    1. Nope. See nadler and amash statements from right after.

    2. We will never be done with this.

      1. We might be done when Trump eventually passes away of old age. Until then, the Democrats won’t let it go. Amash will probably let it go when Trump leaves office, but the Dems will pursue him doggedly for the sin of beating them when the election was supposed to be an easy win for them.

        1. I find it funny you don’t think the left would continue an investigation to destroy a man who fights them so successfully after he was dead.

  4. >>>We chose the words carefully

    subject to reader bias then.

  5. What a mealy mouthed speech. Mueller refuses to answer questions because he knows his findings wont hold up to scrutiny. He left out much of the evidence that went against the narrative he tried to create. This was the best he could come up with absent a defence. Mueller is a coward.

    He talks of a mandate to investigate Russian interference… yet ignored Steele and his misinformation. Why? This was part of the mandate. Why did Mueller make this choice? Why did Mueller leave our exculpatory evidence that helped show page and others were not Russian assets and only highlighted parsed evidence to try to make a case that he was an asset?

    Mueller has a ton to answer and any neutral or objective counselor would be fine to highlight the decisions be made. The fact that he wont respond to criticism of his report says Mich about his report.

    1. Why did Mueller leave our exculpatory evidence that helped show page and others were not Russian assets

      such as?

      1. Jeff. We both know you wont bother to read anything that goes against your biases. Go read Andrew McCarthys various articles on National Review as a start. Then you can go to a current lawsuit of a Russian who stated flatly Mueller left out the part of the conversation regarding the piss tapes in which he stated on the call he dodnt believe the rumors. This was one of the central stories told in the Steele report and the call in question was footnoted bu Mueller in part 1 of the report, you know the one you dodnt read you ignorant fuck. Then you can refer to the original FBI assessments regarding page where page helped the FBI and was known to not be a pan to Russia, or the fact that the Russian intelligence thought page was a fool and not an asset.

        Why do you come to these threads just to show how fucking ignorant you sre?

        1. I frankly don’t believe you read much of anything yourself other than biased summaries posted at places like Breitbart and Infowars. Whenever I ask you to provide any sort of documentation for any of your wild claims, they all amount to “go use Google” followed by an insult. It’s your job to back up your claims, not my job to do your homework for you.

          Anyone can file a lawsuit claiming anything. I can file a lawsuit claiming Mueller is a Martian spy. The existence of a lawsuit itself doesn’t prove anything.

          All I see from you is a desire to punish people like Mueller who actually did their jobs.

          1. “I frankly don’t believe”

            Yeah sure jeff, your fallback. Everyone is lying but you.

            You’re fucking trash.

            1. Are you going to shit all over this thread too in order to satisfy your extreme narcissism?

              1. Are you going to ever stop crying bitch?

              2. It’s funny you accuse others of shitting on threads when you come in and basically demonstrate complete ignorance on any topic you argue about. And when someone tells you explicitly where to go look you claim it was made up.

          2. Jeff… I literally told you about National Review and the author in the third sentence. For fuck’s sake.

            1. You know what he is.

          3. By the way Jeff… the Russian in question was one of the sources of collaborating evidence the FBI used to “prove” the Steele dossier you dumb fuck. Is that enough information for you to educate yourself or are you going to go run and cry and say it isn’t true? Then there was the Flynn filing on exculpatory evidence that required a judge to demand Mueller to turn over all information to Flynn’s defense. Then there was Giorgi Rtskhiladze whose texts were used as part of the Cohen prosecution where Giorgi told Cohen he thought the tapes were fake. Yet this text was used as Muellers evidence of tapes. Or are you ignorant of that too Jeffy?

            Just wallow in your ignorance Jeffy.

            1. Still waiting for a link, Jesse.

              “Go use Google” is not an adequate verification for your claims.

              Once again I’m not going to take your word for it.

            2. You don’t provide links because all of your links would be to places like Breitbart or Infowars. Because you visit those places, accept it as truth, and then berate everyone else for not also believing those sources as truth.

              1. You don’t provide links because all of your links would be to places like Breitbart or Infowars.
                Whenever I ask you to provide any sort of documentation for any of your wild claims, they all amount to “go use Google” followed by an insult.

                He provided actual references, you obtuse retard. Mewling, “Please spoon-feed me your citations,” after he literally provided references that weren’t “Breitbart or Infowars,” shows how fucking lazy you are.

                1. Asking for ONE FUCKING LINK is not “spoon-feeding citations”, it is called “providing evidence for one’s claims”.

                  Why should I take Jesse’s word for anything? Would you take MY word for anything without providing any citations at all?

                2. This would be too funny if it wasn’t so sad:

                  Jesse: Here is a claim that I am making
                  Me: Do you have a citation for your claim?
                  Jesse: No but here’s a bunch of words for you to Google
                  Me: That’s not a citation
                  RRWP: WHAT DO YOU WANT JESSE TO DO, SPOON-FEED IT TO YOU???

                  sheesh

                  1. Life seems really difficult for you

              2. Wow you really are a fucking idiot.

        2. Was the piss tape a central story of the Steele dossier or is it the bright shiny object that everyone is attracted to. I think there is a lot more in the dossier about the Trump organizations relationship to the Russians. Something that neither Trump or his sons deny. I don’t believe President Trump could be compromised by a sex tape, but I do think he might be compromised if his loans were called in.

          1. It was the part that Comey decided was most important to brief Trump on the January after the election. So you decide.

            1. It was part of the briefing and the part that President Trump reacted to most. We do not know if Comey thought it was the most significant item. We do know it was important enough to be mentioned. Or did Comey just mention it to see the President’s reaction?

              1. You have no idea what “fruit of the poisonous tree” is, do you?

                1. “You have no idea what “fruit of the poisonous tree” is, do you?”

                  Unripe plums?

                2. Your suggestion is that Trump get off on a technicality. Is that correct?

                  1. That “technicality” being false evidence of a crime being committed?

                    1. According to the wikipedias, “fruit of the poisonous tree” is not, as you claim, “false evidence of a crime”, but “evidence that is obtained illegally”. Not at all the same.

    2. Mueller has a lot to hide. He wouldn’t dare put himself in a position to answer questions under oath.

      1. Best line from Mueller today:

        “If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.”

        That’s now how the justice system works Bob.

        1. If his viewers were a non-issue, has Mueller ever explained why he removed Strzok from the investigation?

        2. Isn’t that the same as saying, “We had no confidence that the president clearly committed a crime!”?

          I still feel if Horse-Face Mueller would’ve thought there truly was Obstruction, he would’ve said something like, “By DOJ guidelines we cannot indict a sitting president, but we feel based on the evidence, Congress should impeach Trump for Obstruction!”

          The fact that he did not speaks volumes!

          1. Uhhh… That’s almost exactly what he said.

            “…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. A 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…the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing”

            That process is impeachment.

            1. Yes, he talked about protocol, but he did not specifically say that he recommends Congress impeach & he had a right to do that…BIG DIFFERENCE!…I believe he feels there is a weak case for Obstruction, but he will not come out & say that, but, instead tip toe around it enough to get Congress to impeach!

              Contrast that with Ken Starr who held nothing back in his report when going after Clinton….For God’s sake: You spent 25-30 Million & over 2 years for this investigation, when you release your report clearly explain yourself & your findings!

              1. Teddy, impeachment is a political process, solely vested in a political body, the house of representatives. Everything the house does is political, by definition.

                It is not the place of the justice department to say what political outcomes best serve the nation. That is why Mueller was so (maddeningly, to many people) circumspect.

                More generally, a great many of the comments in this thread suffer because their authors have conflated the justice system with the political system, to the detriment of the authors’ ability to make sense of what is going on.

        3. It is when Reason is operating under mass TDS.

    3. “He said he did not plan to testify about the report and any testimony would not go beyond the report’s contents.”

      Interesting. So, he’s immune to Congressional subpoenas? Maybe he thinks that if he’s called before a Senate committee, and a Republican asks, “So, at what point did you realize there wasn’t any evidence of conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign, Trump is going to protect him from the contempt of Congress charge for refusing to answer?

      I expect the Democrats won’t call him as a witness, because he’s going to privately tell them he has nothing on Trump, and any testimony under oath will NOT help their case.

      But the Republicans might decide they’d like to hear his testimony.

      1. So, he’s immune to Congressional subpoenas?

        Why not? Barr evidently is

        1. Collectivist Jeff for the deep state.

        2. Barr is Attorney General. Mueller is not.

        3. Aside from the fact that Barr is currently part of the administration, and Mueller isn’t, Barr is working for the President, and Mueller against.

          So, why would Trump assert executive privilege to protect Mueller from hostile questioning? Why would the DOJ refuse to act on Congressional contempt referrals?

          They wouldn’t. You can’t attack the President, AND hope to use him as your shield, at the same time.

          Absent that protection, Mueller is just a random guy off the street, no more entitled to refuse a subpoena.

    4. Contrast that with what Ken Starr produced in the Clinton report

      __________________________________________________

      Outgoing special counsel Robert Mueller wrote a “convoluted, complex” report that didn’t conclude anything about President Donald Trump, but there wasn’t any reason he couldn’t have said the president was guilty of wrongdoing if the evidence presented itself, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday.

      “You know, Ken Starr issued an independent counsel report on Bill Clinton,” Gingrich told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” after Mueller offered his statement concerning his extensive report on the president. “He used the word guilty 11 times. Six of them were obstruction of justice. It wasn’t complicated. He just said you asked me to report, here is my report. He is guilty.”

      If Mueller had used the word guilty once, “we would be in a different world,” Gingrich added. “He didn’t come out and say President Trump is guilty of anything, where Starr said Clinton was guilty of 11 counts. That is a major difference where we are today.”

      Meanwhile, Gingrich noted that millions of dollars were spent and 500 people were interviewed by “left-wing lawyers that didn’t like Trump” but they did not find sufficient evidence against Trump.

      “At some point in the hunt you have to decide there are no deer in the forest, and the fact is, they couldn’t prove anything,” said Gingrich. “They ought to relax and just say you know, in the absence of proof in America, you are innocent. Therefore, by definition, President Trump is innocent.”
      -Newt Gingrich

  6. TOTAL EXONERATION

    No collusion and no obstruction .

  7. Firing Comey was well with in Trump’s rights as executive. Tell me about the FISA warrants and Steel ‘documents’. The CIA,FBI and NSA are a blight on the country. As is Trump and the last several Presidents and most of congress.

    1. Reason is pro domestic surveillance now.

      1. Preet wins.

      2. Only when it’s against people they don’t like. The shoe will absolutely never, ever be on the other foot. Not ever.

        Wait, which party controls the executive branch now….?

        1. The party the LP’s all crap on while trying to convince their prog friends they’re cool.

  8. Logic and extensive experience with TV courtroom dramas leads me to believe it was never possible to exonerate Trump – only to find him guilty or to not find him so. In a murder, proof of innocence is possible in two ways: the accused was at a Knights of Columbus award dinner in Peoria at the time of the murder, establishing an alibi, or the actual murderer was found. In the case of Russian collusion, an alibi is not possible, the supposed crime having presumably occurred over months, and no one has been found that can be identified as the sole miscreant.
    Trump overstates when he says he is exonerated, but the press also overstates when they point out that he wasn’t – not proven or proven were the only possibilities.

    1. And Mueller basically stated today he wouldnt even reply to criticism of his report. Screw proving exoneration, he wont even reply to people pointing out holes in his legal theory. This is such an example of a weak and dishonest character. If he felt his report is so strong, he should be able to defend it under scrutiny.

      1. Mueller wasn’t installed to get to the truth. The truth is widely known. The Special Counsel investigation was the cover up. The sooner people accept this, the sooner the real criminals can be brought to justice.

        1. It appears Barr might actually be pursuing this honestly. I hope so. And awful lot of people need to burn over this.

          1. Forget Barr, he is a longtime DC SWAMP CRITTER/DEEP STATER…He will not go after his buddies!!
            The False Left/Right paradigm lives on!

        2. And Shackford wants to keep on talking about the report in order to avoid what I happening now that the report has been released.

          There is no pony in that pile of manure.

    2. A crime may involve more than one miscreant. Here we have a large number of people indicted. Mueller left no doubt that a crime against the American people had been committed in the form of election interference. He did not establish the that the Trump Campaign was a conspirator in the crime, only that they benefited from it.

      1. If he was investigating interference, how did he miss Ukrainian interference on behalf of Clinton?

      2. Those indictments were simply to save face for this monumental Witch-Hunt waste of taxpayer money!!

        If you think 12 Russkies paying about $250,000 for some false Fake-Book & Twitter ads swayed the election for Trump, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!….Trump did not win the election, HildaBeast lost it!

        The Russians are pikers compared to America when it comes to fixing elections, both here & abroad!

      3. Almost all of whom are Russian and not part of Trumps campaign. But don’t let that fact stop you.

    3. “collusion”
      Is that even a crime?

      1. Nope. It was a counter intelligence investigation in order to not have the criminal predicate. Oddly the SP regulations require a crime, so the whole investigation was most likely illegal from the get go

        1. It would be interesting if one of the lawyers for Stone or Flynn actually tried to argue that in their defense.

  9. #It’sMueller’sTime.

  10. Reason writers seem desperate to prove that their horrendous coverage of this whole thing was justified.

    You have a month or two before your libertarian creds are destroyed forever.

    Retroactively justifying total surveillance and the police state becuz muh obstruction.

    Sad. I just hope other mainstream libertarians will have the balls to call out this publication for what it is. Absolute trash, and barely a libertarian on the payroll.

    1. They’re not libertarians.

      1. Stossel is. Reason should have a dozen more like him. Rather than the trash that populates their writing and editorial staff.

        1. Within the last year or two these jerkoffs decided to start putting a disclaimer on most of Stossel’s work stating that he doesn’t necessarily represent their views. Yeah, no kidding, he’s way too much of a real libertarian!!

          The biggest surprise is that Welchie Boy hasn’t completely blackballed him yet. Maybe Stossel has a contract that hasn’t quite run out yet or something.

  11. “Mueller All But Begs America To Read His Actual Report”

    He’s on a book tour?

    1. Comey at least made a few million for his part on the charade. Mueller is this big of a fool he only got 2 years of pay.

  12. “…Could not charge a sitting president..”
    IIRC, didn’t Ken Star charge Billy Clinton with eleven counts?

    1. But there they actually had perjury and multiple service members testifying to Clinton asking them to lie under oath.

      Best Mueller could do was find trump asking his lawyer to tell the media he didnt use the word “fire.”

    2. The basis for not being able to charge a sitting president is a DOJ memo written after the Clinton impeachment situation. Mueller wouldn’t have been so hand tied if this were happening back then.

      1. Or if anything he was supposed to investigate was real

  13. It sure seems like he just admitted that the entire obstruction investigation was 10 times a larger affront to the Constitution and due process than anything the President is alleged to have done. He knew there was no collusion a long ass time ago. He knew that it is unlawful for a charge to be brought against the President for obstruction. Yet, he used that as the basis to investigate for another 1+ years? If you can’t charge the President with obstruction, then you can’t use a prosecutor to investigate him, particularly when that prosecutor only exists because, allegedly, there is a DOJ conflict preventing the DOJ from making the prosecute/don’t prosecute decision. He’s admitting that he had no legal basis to do 75% of what he did. And Trump is supposed to be some arch criminal because he wanted to stop an illegal, pointless, and purely political investigation being done on behalf of Congress and not the Exec branch?

    The abuse of power revealed w/rt FISA and the FISC and the manner in which this special counsel comported himself should be the focus of a “Libertarian” magazine. Unfortunately, the dopes they have brought in, who are really just wimpy Democrats, don’t seem capable of comprehending where the real threat to liberty lies.

    Hint. It isn’t in the weakest executive in recent memory. It’s in the administrative state that answers only to itself.

    1. It sure sounded like they kept the investigation open an extra year and a half to aggravate trump into trying to shut down the investigation.

      1. Or to generate enough political/media pressure for him to testify, then charge with perjury.

      2. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. This is exactly right. Mueller should be charged with fraud. He continued to conduct an investigation and claim wages and expenses for over a year after he already determined that there was no collusion. Not once has he ever been asked why he did so or been force to justify this fraud on American tax payers.
      Mueller needs to answer for this fraud and forced to pay back the millions that have been spent after he concluded there was no collusion.
      Trump was never told he was exonerated from the crime of ‘collusion’
      Also, how can you be found ‘not innocent’ of any crime in America which is what Mueller is attempting to push here.
      Either you have evidence of a crime or you don’t. If you don’t then that person is innocent until proven guilty. It is not Mueller’s job or indeed the job of any prosecutor to find someone ‘innocent’. Either put up or shut up. If you cannot find evidence of a crime, then that person is, by default, innocent.
      Mueller, being a partisan hack, is attempting to give fodder to the Democrats by stating he could not exonerate trump of obstruction of a non crime. This is not his job. He has many questions he needs to answer, including why he did not wrap up his investigation over a year ago.

  14. Whatever happened with Senator/ intel committee chair DiFi’s Chinese chauffeur/spy?

    1. Same thing that happened with the cases against the Lt. Governor of Virginia: down the memory hole. “Old news! What difference does it make now anyway! Move on!”

  15. Maybe Amash can convene Congress for a seance and summon the spirit of Mueller to decrypt his messages from the beyond. Knock once for yes and twice for no.

    1. Shorter Amash “Avoiding a perjury trap is OBSTRUCTION!!! Fuck the 5th Amendment!!! “

  16. When is reason going to merge with salon?

    1. Over buzzfeed’s dead body. They called firsties.

    2. Better than merging with Gateway Pundit which is what half the commenters here evidently want.

      1. You cant help but say stupid shit, can you jeff?

        1. Anymore than he can deny his hunger for child rape.

        2. Oh good Lord. It’s no secret that you wants libertarians to be fully on the Trump Train.

          1. It’s no secret you’re a fake-libertarian SJW piece of shit either jeff.

      2. Were you banned there too?

        1. Possibly. It’s hard to keep track!

          1. Yet you still don’t get it.

  17. “If we had confidence that the president had not committed a crime, we would have said so,”

    But confidence isn’t the standard. Proof, one way or another, is.

    1. Yeah, but Trump didn’t like having a two-year, groundless investigating during which he was routinely accused of capital crimes by his political opponents. That’s clear evidence of guilt! He said mean things! Would an innocent person say mean things?!

      1. Well, that and he said they should “wrap it up”.

        And we all know that wanting an investigation to go ahead and issue the finding that you already know to be the truth is wrong. I mean, even suggesting that an investigation be cut short or sped up is obstruction of justice. That cannot be argued.

        Which is why I’m expecting a flurry of calls for charges against pretty much the entire Democrat caucus and all of the major news media who have been loudly objecting to Barr’s investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation and the spying on American citizens.

        You know…. because calling for an end to an investigation is obstruction. And doubly so for those like Pelosi and her chairmen who called for Barr’s removal. You know… because that’s the worst obstruction ever. Worse than Watergate. I know because the Democrats told me so. Many, many times as relates to Trump and the Russia investigation.

  18. The spin machine was in action very quickly on this.

    I watched him speak on NBC news (they broke in live). The initial hope was “this is the bombshell where he says Trump should be impeached”, but when they went to their reporters with “sources” on the Mueller team they all agreed that “There is nothing new here. He said nothing that was not in the Mueller Report”.

    After 10 minutes of discussion, the “analysts” had weighed in: “Mueller was being clear in announcing that it is time for congress to do their job”. This was a clear call for impeachment!

    Spin, spin, spin….

  19. I think it is clear from their other actions and from their attempts to get an interview that were this any person other than the President, they would have issued an indictment.

    They always do. Look at the other indictments they issued (and the plea-bargains they won)… They created some dubious process crimes (including charging someone for lying to the FBI even after the FBI investigators that were supposedly lied to said they did not believe he lied) and resurrecting long-settled tax claims as newly discovered crimes.

    The “carefully selected language” reveals that a bunch of high-level prosecutors love to do some prosecuting. And you don’t even have to invoke anti-Trump animus to get there – that is just how they roll.

    Which makes the “decision not to charge” Hillary Clinton all the more bizarre. After detailing a long list of evidence for a series of serious crimes, Comey says “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring an indictment. Uh, have you guys met a federal prosecutor. They literally would indict a ham sandwich. And they’d get a confession and a guilty plea out of it too.

    1. Yes, but there was no “intent” on the part of HRC to commit the crimes that she actually committed. Trump, on the other hand, did not commit any crimes, but he surely intended on committing those crimes that he did not commit.

      1. FANTASTIC!!! Sounds like a Chico & Groucho Marx Bros. routine!

  20. You guys still slurping Trump pre-ejaculate at the expense of the facts right in front of your faces? Good. Too much shit going on today for me to deal with any kind of disruption of the norm here.

    1. Tony
      May.29.2019 at 1:52 pm
      “You guys still slurping Trump pre-ejaculate at the expense of the facts right in front of your faces?”

      Our ass-sucking lefty ignoramus returns to claim, yet again, “facts”, which he’s never had, nor will ever have.

    2. All the lame sexual nonsense won’t change anything Tones. You lost. Eat the L and move on.

      1. Lost what?

        The president is guilty of many, many crimes, but a stupid policy says he’s above law enforcement outside of Congress.

        It was reiterated in plain English in front of your face today.

        1. The coup attempt. You tried and you lost.

          You went at the king. And you missed.

          1. The coup succeeded. Russia got their man in office. It is rather head-spinning, isn’t it?

            Then a bunch of Republicans investigated the matter and then decided they couldn’t do anything about it without Congress.

            1. So the Ukrainians failed to get their lady I’m office?

            2. I mean, Mueller literally says there was no fucking collusion, but keep on banging that drum you ignorant slut.

              1. Trump and Barr said that’s what he said, but that’s not what he said.

            3. But it has worked! You’ve given away EVERYTHING!

    3. Unfortunately, libertarianism ended up the way most promising political movements end up. The progtards co-opted it, hollowed it out, and filled it up with their own agenda.

      If there’s actually any “mainstream libertarians” left in mainstream libertarianism, I’d be totally surprised. Most of them already bolted years ago.

    4. You seem pretty homophobic there, Tony

      1. Concern noted.

    5. Hahahahahahahahaha

  21. So Mueller says he ain’t talkin’ no more. And the democrats in congress desperately want him to come on their reality TV show and declare that Trump should be impeached.

    But I’m kinda disappointed that he’s not going to testify – because I’d like to hear him explain why he spent so much time trying to pin an obstruction case on Trump after he had already determined the extent of the Russian interference in the election and had after he had already determined that the Trump campaign neither committed any crimes nor coordinated with the Russians.

    And I’d like to hear Mueller explain exactly why his mandate to examine “all aspects of Russian interference in the election” did not extend to the Russians who were working with the DNC, Clinton campaign and the FBI/DOJ via Fusion GPS. I mean, if taking a phone call offering dirt is worthy of conjuring up a bunch of sketchy “false statements” charges to try to “get to the bottom of it”, surely a check for a couple million should be worth a look or two.

    But now we are not going to hear that explanation.

    1. Stop watching FOX you fucking idiot.

      Obstruction of justice is a serious crime, however much you may like the taste of Trump’s naughty area.

      1. Shorter Amash “Avoiding a perjury trap is OBSTRUCTION!!! Fuck the 5th Amendment!!! “

        Lol you lost Tones. Eat the L.

        1. How is an incompetent, corrupt politician getting away with crimes because other politicians are also corrupt equivalent to you winning something? Are you a libertarian or not?

          1. Blah blah blah

            I said YOU LOST. Learn to read. Then eat the L.

            1. You called the president a king and then masturbated to the idea.

              And, get this, the president in question is Donald fucking Trump.

              You lost. Genetically.

          2. Tony
            May.29.2019 at 2:09 pm
            “How is an incompetent, corrupt politician getting away with crimes because other politicians are also corrupt equivalent to you winning something? Are you a libertarian or not?”

            Ask the hag; she’s a master at it.

      2. Uh… but his mandate was “investigating the Russian interference in the 2016 election campaign”.

        And the only people working with Russia and furthering their interference in US electoral politics were democrats. They have publicly acknowledged paying a foreign intelligence agent for dirt on Trump. It is also already public knowledge that the dirt came directly from Russian agents. We know that the FBI paid for this. We know that the DNC paid for this. And we know that the Clinton campaign paid for this.

        But for some strange reason, the special counsel with an almost unlimited budget and a mandate to explore all aspects of Russian interference in the election never saw fit to ask any questions about this situation? Exactly why wouldn’t you think that is a reasonable question to ask?

        Is the only salient fact “team red”? Isn’t it at least a little bit curious that the “investigation into Russian interference” never targeted the people who actually sought out, paid for and used Russian disinformation?

        1. Don’t forget that Clinton also laundered the payments through lawyers and improperly reported the expenditure as legal services.

          Conspiracy.

      3. I still fail to see where justice was obstructed. The Special Counsel’s office was allowed to carry its investigation to conclusion, all subpoenas were complied with, and literally hundreds of hours of testimony was provided. The only allegations I’ve seen are that Trump wanted to end the investigation but didn’t (without even addressing the question of whether he could have, the fact is that hee didn’t) or that he didn’t testify, even though he was not subpoenaed and had the right to decline under the Fifth amendment and/or executive privilege.

        1. Seriously, this isn’t me being snarky or flippant. I sincerely want to understand the argument because i currently don’t.

          1. The only way to understand the argument is to be caught up in the throes of psychosis

          2. You’ll never get an answer from a partisan hack like Tony.

      4. Obstruction of justice is a serious crime, however much you may like the taste of Trump’s naughty area.

        Stop being such a homophobe, shitlord. Your hate isn’t welcome here.

  22. “If we had confidence that the president had not committed a crime, we would have said so,”

    If I had confidence Mueller doesn’t screw chickens in the barn, I would say so.
    Hint, hint, nudge, nudge: guilt by innuendo.

    1. Exactly, facts > confidence.

      He should have said “If we had facts showing the president committed a crime, we would have said so”

      1. He clearly doesn’t have shit, but he reiterated the “I’m not saying he did it, but I’m not saying he didn’t do it, either,” so it doesn’t look like he just wasted $30 million following the leads from a piss dossier.

  23. The solution here seems to be:

    1. Get rid of these super-secret courts like FISA courts. If these investigations were all triggered in some way by bogus information being submitted to secret courts, then the secrecy of the court is part of the problem. Bogus investigations are only strengthened if no one knows the level of the deception involved.
    2. There really does need to be some sort of independent prosecutor type mechanism, that is independent of both the executive branch and the legislative branch. Perhaps something along the lines of a “special master” type of system that the courts now use.

    1. No better idea than an utterly unaccountable bureaucrat with limitless power to do whatever they want.

      1. Then what is your plan to keep politicians accountable to the law, especially when said politicians have other politicians willing to provide cover for them?

        1. Keep it up Chemjeff!

          I’m not sure how you can constantly put up with all the tiresome shit that gets thrown your way, but your resilience is appreciated!

          Thanks!

          1. Thanks Lou!

          2. LouReedRichards
            May.29.2019 at 4:04 pm
            “Keep it up Chemjeff!
            I’m not sure how you can constantly put up with all the tiresome shit that gets thrown your way, but your resilience is appreciated!
            Thanks!”

            Join the party! Lefty ignoramuses deserve to have facts (and shit) jammed down their throats. Sounds like you need a bushel or so.

        2. “Then what is your plan to keep politicians accountable to the law”

          The system we have is the best of a series of bad options.

          1. The system we have now – which says that a member of the executive branch can get away with literal murder, as long as that member has 34 fellow tribesfolk in the Senate willing to provide cover for him/her?

            We both know that if Hillary had been elected, and if the Republican House had decided to impeach her over her corrupt behavior, she would have gotten away with it because 34 Democrats in the Senate would have provided cover for her, right?

            Surely there is a better option besides “the law doesn’t matter to people with friends in high places”

            1. “The system we have now – which says that a member of the executive branch can get away with literal murder, as long as that member has 34 fellow tribesfolk in the Senate willing to provide cover for him/her?”

              The President can stop local police from investigating a murder? That’s a rather interesting take. Clinton showed that a President can’t just ignore subpoenas or civil suits. I don’t see why criminal suits would be any different. And the pardon power is immaterial to state cases.

              So, you want to try again on that one?

              “Surely there is a better option besides “the law doesn’t matter to people with friends in high places””

              With your idea, let’s say the prosecutor just openly violates civil rights of people they are investigating. Who stops them? The President and Congress could not. The judiciary couldn’t be involved AT ALL from the start.

              So…what happens in your perfect world?

              1. Okay that was a bit hyperbolic. But you know what I mean. Under the current standard, evidently, if the crime is exclusively a Federal crime, then the President, or any member of the executive whom the President chooses to shield, is immune from prosecution provided that there are 34 Senators willing to provide cover for that individual. Is that REALLY the standard that we should be advocating for? This standard literally says “the law doesn’t matter to people with friends in high places”.

                Actually, if the murder is of an elected Federal official, it is a Federal crime and therefore, I suppose, the President can stop the FBI from investigating that crime.

                I don’t advocate for a perfect utopia because there is no such thing. But I do think there are ideas that we could potentially borrow from other places, and even our own history, that we could draw upon to make sure justice is better served.

                In the UK, there is “private prosecution”, and evidently it used to be a thing in this country too.

                The original idea of a grand jury was that citizens could bring matters for investigation directly to the jury, instead of having to go through an intermediary filter such as a district attorney.

                Why couldn’t ideas like these be adapted?

                How would violations of civil rights by prosecutors be handled? Well, how are they handled now?

                1. You do realize that murder has no statute of limitations and therefore in your scenario the President can be charged as soon as they leave office. In fact At 12:01 on January 20th, as soon as the incoming President finishes his oath, the FBI can slap cuffs and perp walk the outgoing President. So, the ultimate decider is the electorate. Do they re-elect if the crime occurred during the 1st term and the Constitution forbids anything more than 10 years in the executive branch. Your example is poorly conceived.

                  1. So, the ultimate decider is the electorate.

                    When it comes to issues of guilt or innocence of a crime, THAT IS A PROBLEM. No? Justice should not depend on the will of the mob.

              2. By the way, these aren’t wild-eyed utopian ideas. These are actual examples from history, and in some cases are in current use.

                In France, there is an “examining magistrate” system, where a judge presides over the investigation itself. I don’t know much about the French legal system, but it’s at least an idea worth looking into, no?

                1. Does France use our due process?

                  Nope.

                  Then, no, it is not looking into.

                  1. So you’re not serious then. I’m not advocating for copying the French system verbatim. I’m inquiring to see if there is some improvement to be made so that justice may be better served for all, and I’m willing to look at any worthwhile idea. Are you?

                    1. I don’t think an overseeing ANYBODY with no accountability is a good idea to do much of anything.

                      I’d prefer a murderer as President than an unaccountable bureaucrat having significant power.

                      There is not a system in existence where the well-connected don’t have massive advantages in every conceivable category. To try and make one is foolish, IMO.

                    2. “I’m willing to look at any worthwhile idea”

                      If that were true, you’d have killed yourself long ago

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist
                      May.29.2019 at 5:16 pm
                      “…I’m inquiring to see if there is some improvement to be made so that justice may be better served for all, and I’m willing to look at any worthwhile idea…”

                      Fucking lefty ignoramus hides behind the fig-leaf of higher purpose.
                      Ha and ha, jeff; go fool your momma. No one here is buying that pile of bullshit. You want Trump impeached for being Trump, just like all the other whining losers.
                      Fuck off and die.

                    4. I don’t think an overseeing ANYBODY with no accountability is a good idea to do much of anything.

                      These other systems don’t have bureaucrats with “no accountability”. They have a different system of accountability. What are you afraid of? Why are you even unwilling to take a look at other practices which might be an improvement?

                    5. Why am I not the least bit surprised that a progressive like jeff wants us to emulate the french with their presumption of guilt. Ends always justify means, right?

        3. Free and fair elections.

    2. All of us (including the writers) should agree with you on number one, but they’ve done such a piss poor job covering this whole fiasco that I’m not confident of that.

  24. “Mueller concluded it would be unfair to accuse Trump of crimes knowing that there would not be anything like a criminal trial by which Trump could defend himself. ”

    So…smear him instead? That is preferrable?

    “Trump didn’t want to talk to me — which he was not obligated to do, mind you — and only wanted to submit written answers that weren’t as robust as I hoped (likely, Trump answered EXACTLY what was asked and not a tiny bit more…which any lawyer worth a shit would say to do)”

    “Mueller described obstructive behavior, particularly when Trump fired FBI Director James Comey”

    Explains the ending of the investigation…oh wait, that never happened.

    “If Mueller’s hands were not tied by the nature of Trump’s position”

    Damn that whole Executive thing and all.

  25. The corrupt, dirty cop Mueller knows as well as anyone that the shit is about to hit the fan in a big way with the release of Inspector General Horowitz’ report on Operation Crossfire Hurricane.

    It’s not the least bit surprising that he has decided that now is a good time for him to get the hell out of Dodge!

  26. Short Take:

    He has to muddy the waters even more so before the election.

  27. “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mr. Mueller said, reading from prepared notes behind a lectern at the Justice Department. He also said that while Justice Department policy prohibits charging a sitting president with a crime, the Constitution provides for another process to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing — a clear reference to the ability of Congress to begin impeachment proceedings.

    “When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable,” he said.

    Total exoneration! Case closed! Crooked Hillary!
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-special-counsel.html

    1. Back your kiddie porn, shrieky-poo.

    2. ““If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,””

      Hmm, when did the prosecutor have the job to determine the innocence of anybody?

      I thought innocence was the DEFAULT. The prosecutor has to prove GUILT and, failing to do so, the target is, by default, innocent.

      Mueller seems to be awfully bad when it comes to due process.

      1. As does Reason, at least when Trump is involved.

  28. I think the American people are getting really tired of obstruction of investigation into crimes that never happened being used as excuses to harass otherwise innocent people.

  29. So it is unfair to Trump to suggest specific actions are crimes because there will not be a trial to clear his name. Not withstanding that the purpose of a trial is for the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the defense to prove innocence. How is making nonspecific insinuations that Trump committed a crime that Trump cannot refute at all more honorable?

  30. Should I note that Reason seems to have few problems with a prosecutor using a “Guilty until proven innocent” standard here?

    If you could not prove did anything, he didn’t do it. It’s not Trump’s job to prove that he did not do anything (which is impossible as is). But Mueller is going for the “Well, I am pretty sure he did it but cannot prove it”, which should be HORRIFYING for anybody interested in civil liberties to hear from a prosecutor.

    1. Special case. Hundreds upon hundreds of prosecutors are signatories to a statement that Trump would be prosecuted for many, many crimes except for the fact that he happens to be president. Bob Mueller said precisely the same thing.

      1. “Special case. ”

        Of course. Always a reason why we need to suspend due process JUST THIS ONE TIME. It wouldn’t become a habit or anything. Perish that thought.

        “Hundreds upon hundreds of prosecutors are signatories to a statement that Trump would be prosecuted for many, many crimes except for the fact that he happens to be president.”

        Easy to forget that, when one is President, due process is ignored. Thanks for the reminder. If Mueller could, according to him, never actually indict the President…what was the point?

        By default, you’re innocent. It requires tons of evidence and a verdict to change that. People may hate it, but what Trump has been saying has been correct. He has been exonerated.

        How?

        THE PROSECUTOR DIDN’T CHARGE HIM WITH ANYTHING. Ergo, innocent. Just like Hillary is innocent of a crime, even with a very, very tortured reading of said law. I mean, she DID the email thing — she admitted so — but it’s not a crime apparently. Well, now.

        “Bob Mueller said precisely the same thing.”

        How about we quote somebody with some clue how due process works?

        1. He hasn’t been exonerated. The prosecution has simply been pushed off to Congress. What a sweet, innocent little angel Bob Mueller is with his faith in the United States government to do its job.

          Not guilty until proven otherwise. I get it. Every kindergartner gets it. But what happens when you’re quite likely guilty but you can’t get strung up for it because the jury is all a bunch of dirty sycophants of you personally?

          1. “He hasn’t been exonerated.”

            When, EXACTLY, did it become the job of the prosecutor to EXONERATE people? You’re innocent as a default. The prosecutor is only able to prove you guilty. If they fail, like it or not, you’re not guilty. I’m not sure “Well, we should let prosecutors on their own determine guilt or innocence” would work out well for much of anybody.

            “The prosecution has simply been pushed off to Congress.”

            What “prosecution” can Congress do? Removal from office isn’t prison. It’s not even a fine, really.

            “What a sweet, innocent little angel Bob Mueller is with his faith in the United States government to do its job.”

            You may have a warm spot for somebody who seems to have no clue how due process works, but I do not.

            “Not guilty until proven otherwise. I get it. Every kindergartner gets it. But what happens when you’re quite likely guilty but you can’t get strung up for it because the jury is all a bunch of dirty sycophants of you personally?”

            I know. SOMETIMES, you just NEED to ignore due process to REALLY punish those guilty folks. Preaching to the choir, friend. Completely on board with ignoring due process in those cases when the guilty is just such a super, duper bad person.

            Man, I remember when progs claimed they’d rather 100 guilty go free than to punish one innocent person. Good times…

            1. Impeachment is a political analogue to a grand jury indictment. The trial in the Senate is analogue to a jury trial. If the president is removed from office as a result, the immunity from being directly charged with a crime is also removed, so those may go forward.

              There is nothing stopping Congress from acting on what they have other than political calculation.

              1. True. But Mueller also wasn’t needed for Congress to do that.

                1. And it wouldn’t be a prosecution any more than a “no confidence” vote in Parliamentary systems is a prosecution. Given no crime is needed for a removal…a prosecution it cannot be.

            2. I’m very much on record as being against Trump’s removal from office until the election, however deserving he quite obviously is. But that’s the pragmatist in me. I don’t want to risk the American people breathing a sigh of relief when a relatively normal human being takes his place and forgetting that it’s the Republican party, more than Trump himself, that is fucking them over.

              Applying this 8th grade civics shit is just too cute for words when the facts on the ground are that the prosecutor found many, many crimes committed by the president but felt unable to move forward with prosecution or even accusation because of a literally unique case of the president being above the law. Which is I take it a libertarian principle all of a sudden, to be dispensed with upon the inauguration of President Warren.

              1. “Applying this 8th grade civics shit is just too cute for words when the facts on the ground are that the prosecutor found many, many crimes committed by the president but felt unable to move forward with prosecution or even accusation because of a literally unique case of the president being above the law.”

                Presidents are free to ignore subpoenas? News to Nixon, I’ll bet. So, they’re not above the law. Clinton didn’t have to testify in a civil case brought against him?

                Mueller didn’t prove anything. His prosecution was laughable (do you remember the Russians he indicted who DID show up and he was unprepared to do discovery?). That the investigation finished is proof no obstruction happened. Discussing what you want with lawyers, being told you cannot do so legally, and then NOT DOING SO is not illegal. In the slightest.

                Why the fuck do you think people HIRE lawyers for advice?

              2. Man you are one craven political asshole. Seek help.

            3. No, damikesc, due process for a sitting president is not the same as due process for everyone else. Get used to it. It’s actually sort of a good idea.

              If Mueller could have indicted Trump, then the question of his continued tenure in office would have been put to a jury of 12 postal clerks, firemen, elevator inspectors, landscapers, and stay-at-home moms. Giving those few unaccountable folks a bolt-from-the-blue power to reverse the result of an election decided by millions seems unwise.

        2. No, damikesc, due process for a sitting president is not the same as due process for everyone else. Get used to it. It’s actually sort of a good idea.

          If Mueller could have indicted Trump, then the question of his continued tenure in office would have been put to a jury of 12 postal clerks, firemen, elevator inspectors, landscapers, and stay-at-home moms. Giving those few unaccountable folks a bolt-from-the-blue power to reverse the result of an election decided by millions seems unwise.

  31. Trump tweeted his own response, one that misunderstands just lies about everything Mueller said.

    Fixed it for ya.

    1. Tryhard blowjobber tries so hard, but remains inadequate

  32. “If we had confidence that the president had not committed a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller explained. They did not, and so the report does not actually clear the president of concerns that he obstructed the investigation.

    IOW, I want everyone to keep this issue alive even though my investigation is done and I didn’t find anything.

  33. Liberal Reporter on What Mueller Was ‘Clearly Doing’ By Giving That Statement Today

    Mueller just poured gasoline on the impeachment garbage fire. He carefully tailored his words to achieve exactly that effect

  34. It’s funny how you accused Trump of completely missing the point when he actually hit it on the head. You cannot claim guilt, regardless of whether there is a method to charge a sitting President, because no underlying crime was committed. In order for his actions to be evaluated as criminal, they would have to go beyond the scope of Presidential responsibilities and the report did not prove that intent in any capacity. Thus, you would be trying to charge a President for being President. That’s why Trump is completely correct. You cannot charge him even if you could charge a sitting President, thus he is innocent until proven guilty.

  35. The whole Mueller thing has become repetitive and pointless. There is not much there.

    However it is not every day you have a president who is expert in aircraft carrier design. He said this in 2017 and is bringing it up again.

    “It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said—and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said, ‘What system are you going to be—’ ‘Sir, we’re staying with digital.’ I said, ‘No you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good,’ ”

    Ya know what? He is right. I don’t see how you are going to launch a plane with digital.

    1. Well he’s certainly not as capable as his predecessor who visited all 57 states.

  36. I saw this asked on Twitter, and maybe it’s worth answering.

    If Mueller couldn’t touch the president because of a technicality, then what was the point of probe? He couldn’t send evidence of criminal activity to the DOJ and directly urge congress to impeach him?

    If a prosecutor declines to press charge due to the lack of evidence, then the case is closed. If Trump was an alleged drug dealer, Reason would have said “case closed, drug wars bad”. Why should a libertarian rejoice over the government exploring secondary / political means to prosecute the defendant again, because the prosecutor had personal misgivings?

    1. XM, you didn’t actually listen to Mueller, did you?

      What source did you use, to get the notion that Mueller declined to press charges because of a lack of evidence? It wasn’t Mueller, because he was at pains to say otherwise. That was sort of the point of the press conference.

      Seems like more than half the people on this thread must be relying on sources like you are using. They aren’t reliable sources, and you should stay away from them.

  37. At the end of the day, when all is said and done, and the fat lady sings, Mueller’s swan song isn’t going to change most people’s minds.

    There will always be those who say that Trump must have committed a crime. It could be anything from jaywalking to tax fraud. A man doesn’t reach Trump’s age without doing something ‘against the law.’

  38. If I’m not misreading, you’re buying into the entirely unwarranted implication, supported only by innuendo from Mueller, that the reason charges were not brought was because the President could not be indicted while in office.
    That’s wholly misleading, at least according to Mueller’s introduction where he says the conclusion was “that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.”
    Mueller wants to have his cake and eat it.
    This country, so far, does not allow charges to be brought for thought crime. The future though does not bode well.

  39. My, how the goal posts have shifted.

    I remember when Mueller was going to find collusion, conspiracies with Russians, tax evasion, fraud, treason, etc., and it was all just a matter of time.

    Those were the days.

    1. He found some of that. The other crimes were beyond his charge.

      Most libertarian president ever!

      1. So, which ones did Mueller find committed by Trump?

        1. Oh, you weren’t talking about Trump.

          Oh, well.

          #WorseThanNixon!

      2. Tony,
        If you read the New Testament, you will see that Jesus in the True Son of God. There is no other conclusion for it is self-evident.

      3. He found no evidence of collusion. That was a waste of time based on a sham dossier.

        He found no evidence of collusion. He had a list of potentially suspicious behavior which wasn’t enough to mount a criminal charge, then listed them in his report because he couldn’t rule out the possibility that Trump may have obstructed. That’s not his job.

        You can say he had evidence but decided to follow precedent an declined to charge a sitting president. If that was the case, then why didn’t he just recommend that congress impeach him? He couldn’t relay his concerns to Barr or the DOJ so they could make their own decision?

        Mueller spent hundreds of hours interviewing witnesses, and no claimed to have seen obstruction. If impeachment somehow reaches the senate and an inquiry is made, no one who made statements under oath will sing a different tune. It’s over. Get over it.

        1. Sad, silly little sheep.

          Plenty of evidence for “collusion.” Dump trucks full. All spelled out. I realize most of you are illiterate and can’t function without Tucker Carlson squinting his thoughts into your brains.

          And downright criminality when it comes to obstructing justice.

          Mueller was generous to the president. Commenters have been calling it conservative. As if he were from another era, where presidents weren’t psychopathic traitors.

          And I’m glad if it’s over. As I said, keep him there until President Pocahontas wins a landslide victory over him. Then the real prosecutions start.

          1. The biggest difference between Nixon and Trump:

            Watergate actually happened.

            1. So what were the lies in the Mueller report?

          2. No such crime as “collusion”.
            Mueller said no coordination or conspiring happened, which would be criminal.
            Obstructing an investigation of a crime that the alleged perpetrator knows didn’t occur is only a way for the corrupt legal system to try to get someone on something they couldn’t prove happened.
            Faucahontas as the next president?
            Your delusion goes into realms unimagined.

  40. Mueller doesn’t like Trump. We get it.

    1. And Mueller wants to continue to be invited to the DC elite fancy parties where young political groupies swoon over his every word as they munch of tiny little fancy foods and sip on fancy wines.

  41. The House won’t impeach Trump until the Democrats have seen the movie.

  42. TLDR: Trump obstructed justice and should be prosecuted but won’t because his spineless Republican friends value power more than the country’s rule of law and institutions. Derelict in duty and traitors to everything they say they love.

    1. How, EXACTLY, did he “obstruct” justice?

      Be specific, son.

    2. wearingit
      May.29.2019 at 6:33 pm
      “TLDR: Trump obstructed justice…”

      Lefty imbeciles, for some reason, seem to believe repeating a lie changes it into something other than a lie.
      Hint: It’s still a lie.

      1. Desperate psychotics desperately believe

    3. “”because his spineless Republican friends value power more than the country’s rule of law and institutions.””

      Is that why the dems Senate didn’t remove Bill Clinton from office after the house impeached him for obstruction?

  43. “If Mueller’s hands were not tied by the nature of Trump’s position, it seems very, very clear that there would have been a recommendation for charges.”

    It was the second “very” that sold me. Of course, in real life the only thing Mueller said was that he couldn’t rule out that Trump obstructed justice, and beyond that he wouldn’t comment further. That’s it. But that would make for boring news.

    1. Really, that’s all Mueller said? What was all that business about how the justice department can’t charge a sitting president with wrongdoing, followed by the pointed, unmistakable (if tacit) references to impeachment?

      It will be for the benefit of folks like you, TwelveInch, that Mueller has to be hauled back to testify before congress, so someone can ask point blank, “If the conduct you reported by Trump was found in an investigation of some other person, would you have charged that other person with obstruction?”

      No doubt, if Mueller answers in the affirmative, you will then be on board for impeachment. Right?

  44. “Beyond that refresher of the contents of the report, Mueller also took the opportunity to remind us that the report is very firm that Russian interests did attempt to interfere with the results of the 2016 election. The report reminds us there have been several indictments of Russian nationals for hacking the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign and another set of indictments of Russians accused of conspiracy, wire fraud, and identity theft in various campaigns to manipulate public opinion.”

    Shackford actually included that in the story!
    Surprise! A foreign government ‘interfered’ with an election! And some agents were ‘indicted’!
    And therefore TRUMP!
    Lame, lame, lame…

  45. ” I was actually surprised at how clearly Mueller described obstructive behavior, particularly when Trump fired FBI Director James Comey ”
    Well this chick thought it was awesome.
    https://nypost.com/2019/05/29/hillary-clinton-was-ecstatic-when-trump-fired-comey-book/

    1. Lot of cred, right there! Almost as convincing as Tony.

  46. But he did want to make it very, very clear what the report actually concluded, and why it said what it said, particularly about whether President Donald Trump obstructed the effort to investigate whether any crimes had been committed.

    “If we had confidence that the president had not committed a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller explained. They did not, and so the report does not actually clear the president of concerns that he obstructed the investigation. Rather, the Justice Department’s position is that the president cannot be charged with crimes while he is in office.
    Turns out it’s not quite that simple.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mueller-and-barr-blast-misinterpretations-no-conflict-on-obstruction

  47. This place is like the worst personality cult ever.

    1. Blowhard Woodchip
      May.29.2019 at 8:36 pm
      “This place is like the worst personality cult ever.”

      A fucking lefty ignoramus, suffering from TDS, is upset that only equally stupid folks agree Trump should be impeached for being Trump.
      Seek help. Or don’t; maybe it’ll be fatal in your case.

      1. The ‘cult’ of innocent until proven guilty.
        Crazy.

        1. Just like Hillary?
          Ha ha ha ha ha!

          1. You think that was clever, but you really just proved my point.

            Shackford and Reason want Trump held to a standard that did not apply to Hillary, or her husband. In the cases of those both Comey and Starr reported that they found evidence of criminal acts. Yet no charges for those acts were brought.

            Principals vs principles.

            1. It’s funny how people think Trump committed obstruction, yet think the deleting of 30,000 emails to avoid a subpoena is laughable opposed to actual obstruction of justice.

    2. PAID TROLL

    3. GORGE SOROS PAID TROLL

    4. Troll Troll Troll Troll

  48. Trump fired Comey at the recommendation of Rosenstein. I hope Barr’s investigation uncovers the whole crooked lot of Justice Dept. cronies and sends them to jail. As someone else said, Mueller is getting the hell out of Dodge before the great reckoning. This is just another leftist article by the once-proud and unbiased Reason Magazine – now gone to hell.

  49. If only they could TDS just a liiittle bit harder, then they can destroy the evil orange man!

  50. “The report was clear—there was no collusion, no conspiracy—and the Department of Justice confirmed there was no obstruction.”

    Interesting choice of words by information minister Sarah Sanders. The “report” said “no collusion, on conspiracy” but it’s DoJ that “confirmed . . . no obstruction.” Sanders, having been burned once, has learned not to stick her neck out to cover for Bill Barr.

  51. Read the report? I don’t even read the articles, just jump to the comments.

  52. thanks for this detailed Terraria apkTerraria apk article.

  53. Delicate POO Shielded from Mean Warship

    The White House asked Navy officials to obscure the USS John S. McCain while President Trump was visiting Japan, Pentagon and White House officials said Wednesday night. A senior Navy official confirmed he was aware that someone at the White House sent a message to service officials in the Pacific requesting that the USS John McCain be kept out of the picture while the president was there. That led to photographs taken Friday of a tarp obscuring the McCain name.

    A senior White House official also confirmed that they did not want the destroyer with the McCain name seen in photographs. The request was made to keep Trump from being upset during the visit.

    Sailors on the USS John S. McCain expressed relief that there would be no POO* on their decks during the Memorial Day weekend.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/meghan-mccain-hits-out-at-trump-over-report-white-house-wanted-uss-john-s-mccain-covered-up/2019/05/29/3ad314b2-8272-11e9-933d-7501070ee669_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dd097037fb25

    *President Orange Obstruction

    1. Troll

  54. So no mention that the role of the prosecutor is not to exonerate?

    And if you can’t prove guilt you are presumed innocent.

    WTF Reason

    1. I can explain it to you. POO* and his propagandists again claimed “complete exoneration.” Mueller again proved that they are lying, stating on Wednesday: “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” In other words, and in plain English, Mueller did not find “innocence.” He certainly did not declare Trump innocent of obstruction and conspiracy. Stated another way, Mueller declared, “If we had confidence that the president was innocent, we would have said so.”

      “And if you can’t prove guilt you are presumed innocent.”

      In an American court of law, no one is declared “innocent” in a trial. They are declared “not guilty.” There’s a difference. Of course, the Mueller Report was not a trial, therefore your statement is irrelevant. Hope this helps!

      *President Orange Obstruction

      1. They don’t need to be declared innocent because they are presumed innocent. But that requires something more than a 5th grade education to understand, which explains who you, tony, jeffy, and reason fail to understand it.

        1. “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

          Who’s the gullible patsy? That would be you.

      2. The only president that has been set is this; no Demon Rat pResident ever elected will ever get a moments peace. Ever. You want want war MF? This is war.

  55. […] after Mueller’s please-read-my-report press conference Wednesday, Weld, who is scuffling to gain traction in his primary challenge against the president, […]

    1. Billy Weld was a drunk then. This is one of those vintages time does not improve upon.

  56. So once again we have reason advocating for presumption of guilt. Hardly the first time shack has done this. After all, investigations are good because they can exonerate, right? Oh, and process crimes are a thing now according to reason.

    It no wonder that progs like jeffy love this new unprincipled reason.

  57. Just exactly how many pages does it take to say: “I’m sorry for wasting 0ne hundred million taxpayer dollars, and three years obstructing the duly elected president from being president, all in a failed coup attempt, based on lies, lies we knew where lies from the very beginning. Again. I’m sorry.”

  58. ROBERT MUELLER, PARTISAN FRAUD

    “…Here is my question. (I know it has been asked before, but it can’t be repeated too often.) If Mueller’s charge was to investigate “Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election…[including] investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign,” why didn’t he look into the possibility that the false information fed by alleged Russian insiders to an agent of the Clinton campaign was a disinformation effort by the Russian government, meant to interfere in the 2016 presidential election–an effort in which the Clinton campaign colluded?

    There is strong circumstantial evidence that the Steele dossier was exactly that, while there never was any evidence at all that the Trump campaign colluded in any way with Russians. So why was Mueller’s investigation confined to the wrong campaign?

    The question answers itself. Mueller’s mission was the same as Christopher Steele’s mission, and Glenn Simpson’s, and Perkins Coie’s, and Hillary Clinton’s: to destroy Donald Trump, by hook or by crook. That is the only explanation for Mueller’s seeming myopia about his own failure to look for collusion where, in all likelihood, it actually existed.”

  59. Because he’s a lying coward.

  60. […] has Mueller’s report been released (minus redactions), he went through the effort to publicly come forward in May and give a statement summarizing the report for those who didn’t read it, to essentially beg […]

  61. […] has Mueller’s report been released (minus redactions), he went through the effort to publicly come forward in May and give a statement summarizing the report for those who didn’t read it, to essentially beg […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.