History called for Robert Mueller to stand up for his country.

[Jakes Progress]

He took a pass.

I get it that he doesn't want to. I get it that he wants other people to do it. I get it that he's afraid of his safety and reputation.

But sometimes there is a call and you are the one who needs to answer it. I think the country is worth the effort.

[SunSeeker]

1. K & R

[ecstatic]

2. True, but dems were also trying to pass to Mueller.

Looks like they are the only safeguard left. It's time to act.

[Nuggets]

57. Blaming Dems

for his lack of courage?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. I think he is braver than most people on this forum. You weren't listening.

Pay attention, Americans!

And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interference in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you.

My hands are tied, yours are not!

And second, the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing.

Could not be clearer.

[Jakes Progress]

8. It could be much clearer.

It is not bravery to hide behind wishy-washy language.

How about: "The president clearly committed obstruction, and the evidence I was allowed to develop indicated that he and his office likely colluded with a foreign government to subvert our democratic elections. He needs to be removed from office. Oh. and by the way, Barr lied."

Now that would be clear.

Testifying to congress. Holding a press conference and taking questions. Talking personally with his long time republican friends in the senate. Those would be clear actions.

No. He ducked.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. As a prosecuter he can't legally say that. Mueller is a prosecuter with integrity.

Particularly he can't say that with this AG Barr and this DoJ with its formal written regulations.

[Jakes Progress]

12. That is poppy cock.

He is using his "integrity" to duck his responsibility.

You are using the republican's argument. Their attack is that he spent all those months and money with the full power of the office to investigate the president's actions. If he can't say that the president broke the law, then, according the trump's lawyers, there was no law broken. In the real world, if a prosecutor does not bring charges, you are legally innocent. No crime.

Now the rub is that he can use the excuse that he couldn't bring charges because he was not, under conventions that the DoJ sometimes uses, allowed to charge the president. That does not mean that he didn't commit the crimes. If the lead prosecutor can't say that he committed crimes, then by the rules, trump is innocent.

(The idea of not bringing charges against a sitting president is a DoJ opinion - not a "formal written regulation".

Right now there is not one person who is in a better position to end the trump befoulment of our country. He may wish he were not in that position, but his is. A truly brave man would damn the petty pretensions of the bureaucrats and save the country.

[uponit7771]

20. I'm watching FAUX News now and they're doing THIS EXACT THING !! Mueller's presser was damning

... it's not going to good for Red Don now.

FAUX News is questioning Barr's statements about Mueller not charging with OoJ

It's gettting good

[smirkymonkey]

54. +1000

I agree with you. Mueller skirted the responsibility for one reason. Because he wanted to. Since when do republicans ever play by the rules. The man is 74 years old. I am sure he could retire comfortably if he wanted to. He doesn't need to protect his reputation for the sake of his "career". I'm sorry, but I think he took the coward's way out. I just can't believe how many people here are making him out to be some kind of hero.

[deist99]

59. clearly

I've read all of part one and most of Part II. It clearly says in the summary of Part I that "the investigation could not establish that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians in their election interference activities". In fact it goes further in another part saying that the Russians wanted Trump elected and Trump wanted elected but it appears they were working in parallel not with each other (I'm paraphrasing that part). So there is no way Mueller was gong to say they likely colluded. I'm not a lawyer but I think that when being investigated for a crime "could not establish" is about the same as did not happen.

And we needed to establish that Trump worked with the Russians. It was the only way that we could hope to get any repukes to jump ship and go against Trump. Without proof of that conspiracy they will say how can he be obstructing justice if no crime was committed. So Pelosi is right not to impeach. Unless they can dig up evidence proving Trump conspired with the Russians. Which if Mueller couldn't do it I don't think the House will be able to, unless someone starts talking.

[uponit7771]

15. No, he told congress to fuck off ... I don't see how that's brave at all.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Wrong: Mueller to Congress: "I can't legally indict the sitter. You have every right to impeach"

[50 Shades Of Blue]

4. That's the bottom line to me.

[Claritie Pixie]

5. Totally disagree with you, sorry.

[uponit7771]

16. Telling congress to go screw themselves isn't brave

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644237/robert-mueller-remarks-transcript

"...And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before congress..."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. Wrong: Mueller to Congress: "I can't legally indict the sitter. You have every right to impeach"

[uponit7771]

19. Mueller said what was in the transcript quote, you can't call HIS OWN WORDS wrong. He said

... he's not going to go before congress.

That's not brave

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Wrong. I called HIS words CORRECT. Plus he said he'd go but legally could only testify his report.

[uponit7771]

23. Where!? I'm not talking about 2nd hand source either.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. I quoted them above. But here's another quote from his statement today for you to read

Referring to the DoJ's official determination (this DoJ under this AG (and previous AG)):

So that was justice department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office’s -- that is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general. As required by department regulations. [...]

... because, as Mueller explicitly says earlier in his statement, innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

Then he explicitly says he makes his own decisions.

Now I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

His study of the law and regulations make him feel he is bound. He spends lots of time in his statement saying 'I am bound by this and I am bound by that'. The only way to read that is 'Do your job! I've gone as far as I possibly can!'

Now, you can disagree with him on his reading of law and regulation and you can disagree with him on his conclusions about what to do about them, but you can't say he doesn't operate with integrity.

There has been discussion about an appearance before congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before congress.

He explicitly is not going to get into allegations that a defendant has no defense in court against. Not while testifying, not while at a podium.

He is not going to talk about the pee tape. Sorry.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

This could not be clearer! Congress, especially the House, get access to that work product! Do what you are doing now, arguing in court to get access.

Couple this with his mention of the unindicted co-conspirator sitting ( "sitting president" ) in the Office.

Triple this with his part about "the constitution requires [requires][REQUIRES] a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing." That process is impeachment. Mueller says it is required when it is credible to formally accuse "wrong doing".

Mueller chooses his words carefully.

So beyond what I have said here today, and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the justice department or congress. [...]

Sorry, but I trust Mueller's reading of the law and appropriateness (his shorthand for what he feels he is obligated to do/say/not-do/not-say.

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interference in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you.

"ATTENTION OF EVERY AMERICAN"

That means:

Wake up!

Don't fall asleep!

It's not over! My bit is over but it is not over!

[Jakes Progress]

38. You keep "quoting" Mueller. But

you are making up words. For instance, Mueller never says the word impeachment.

Over and over, you use the word "obviously". Then you talk about his regard for law. By law there is nothing obvious unless it is said and proven. You cannot prove that is what he meant. He did not say that that is what he meant. So your interpretation of his words has no more validity - by law - than the way donald trump is going to interpret them.

After watching the 9 minutes a couple of times, I am not seeing him as much a shirker as before. I believe him to be a member of that class that is so out of touch that they don't get reality. I think he really thinks he has cleared it all up. (I'm still a little pissed at his praise for Barr.) He doesn't get it.

Read Robert DeNiro's piece in the Times.

[greyl]

6. Please read his report. nt

[Jakes Progress]

9. Which one.

The one that is redacted. Did that.

Why can't he answer questions about the report?

[GulfCoast66]

7. Could not disagree more.

He issued a damning report and double downed on it today.

And I doubt he fears for his safety.

[Jakes Progress]

11. He issued a slightly darning report.

He avoided answering any questions about he report today. That is not doubling down.

If he does not fear for his safety, he is not as smart as I think he is.

[uponit7771]

14. +1, then told congress to fuck off

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Wrong: Mueller to Congress: "I can't legally indict the sitter. You have every right to impeach"

[uponit7771]

24. False, Mueller said he wasn't going to provide information "...in any appearance before congress"

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. Re (breaking it down for you) "I can't legally indict the sitter. You have every right to impeach"

His statement:

Paraphrase: "I can't legally indict the sitter."

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.

Thus he says he can't legally indict "while he is in office" (the sitter). Hint, hint, get him out of office (de-elect/impeach-convict).

Paraphrase: "You have every right to impeach"

the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing.

There is one such process, the only process that fits that bill and that would be impeachment. Notice that Mueller very carefully says (again) "sitting" and "formally" together.

So, that is how he says "You have every right to impeach."

[uponit7771]

32. Irrelevant to my point, I'm talking about Mueller meeting with congress

[Jakes Progress]

37. Why does it need paraphrasing?

Why is he laying hints? Why is he ducking his responsibility with obfuscation?

Why do you get to decide what he meant? Republicans will do the same thing. Why didn't Mueller say what he meant? Why all the "hint hint" and "thus" and paraphrase?

Again. I can understand why he wants to duck and hide. He's a private man. He's a proud republican who doesn't want to anger the friends he has had for decades. But history picked this time and this man. He opted out.

[PoliticAverse]

26. More specifically - under current DOJ policy I can't indict. It's still not a matter settled

by the Supreme Court legally.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

27. Exactly and precisely. . . . nt

[Bradshaw3]

29. You are using quotes as if these were Mueller's words

I read his statement. Maybe I missed it, but where does he utter the words, "You have every right to impeach."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. Yes, and he didn't by name address Congress. Thus: Obvious paraphrase. See also this post

... one minute before your post, hence not seen.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12140678

[Bradshaw3]

34. If he didn't say those words you can't put them in quotes.

Doesn't matter if you call it "obvious parphrasing" or not.
Here is an explanation of how to use quotes:
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/quotation-marks/

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you weren't aware of what you were doing. You only use quotes if the person said those exact words. Your take that Mueller clearly said such things is false. That is your interpretation, not his words.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. If I tell you I am paraphrasing, then I am paraphrasing. Period.

Fuck Grammarly & their carpet bombing advertising. They are commercial, not a reference.

I see people using quote marks all the time and you don't object.

Lately I've started using single quote marks for paraphrases and double quote marks for actual quotes. I'm sorry I have not been consistent enough for you.

If I tell you I am paraphrasing, then I am paraphrasing. Period.

[Bradshaw3]

41. With that you are giving yourself license to deceive

If people use quotes improperly, as you did, and I see it I would point it out. By using quotes inaccurately as you did, you were making a claim that Mueller said those things when he for sure did not. That is misleading to put it nicely. You don't need to make insincere apologies. What you need to do is learn how to use quote marks so that you are not misleading people.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. You've got nothing but a full court press on the use of quote marks. . . . nt

[Jakes Progress]

45. The whole trump thing is about

abusing conventions and saying things that aren't true. If you use quotes, you are saying that these are the words the subject used. You should admit that you erred and move on instead of trying to make fun of those who have pointed out your error. Refusing to admit that you put out false information is the least you can do. We ask trump to do it all the time.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

50. So you'd rather spend your time attacking me repeatedly on quote marks than tRump.

We see what you got.

Quote marks.

[Bradshaw3]

60. That is incoherent

I gave you the rule for using quotes and why how you used them was misleading. If you want to go on using them to mislead then you would obviously be doing it intentionally, which from your responses is seems like what you intended all along. I prefer to be an honest broker on here, not engage in tactics the other side uses.

[Jakes Progress]

46. So the conventions of argument and conversation don't apply to you?

You are above the laws and conventions of writing? Hmmmmm.

Just admit you screwed up and stop trying to throw dirt on other people to keep from admitting it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

49. Nonsense. You got nothing, public opinion is Mueller was clear: Impeach. But you got "quotes".

So you double team me with bradshaw.

On the issue of quote marks.

Multiple times I quote from Mueller. And I paraphrase. And it was very quickly clear what was paraphrased when I was challenged on it. For those people who could not immediately see the obvious paraphrase like most people.

But no. You got quotation marks to hammer me with.

So you and bradshaw are hammering me.

That's what you got.

[Jakes Progress]

67. Don't play games with this stuff.

You use a very trumpian strategy when you deflect from your serious error in judgement when you did exactly what trump does. You tried to mislead people into believing you were speaking with Mueller's voice. You did it because without Mueller's words your "paraphrase" was simply a misguided opinion. So you tried to use Mueller as a shield.

You got called on it and have ducked, dodged, and squealed about it since then. You have, like trump, attacked those who pointed out your error. Just admit you screwed up. You can claim ignorance of the rules of grammar involving clarity. Although, like someone else we know, you say elsewhere in this thread to fuck the rules.

The point, as you well know, is not the quote marks. You would love to reduce your error to that. But when you used those quotes that did not come from Mueller as if they did, you were being dishonest. That is exactly what we are dealing with with the current administration. Saying things that are not true. Then brushing them off with a shrug.

In case it was just a matter of your not understanding, here is something you need to know. A paraphrase of someone's words does not go in quotes. if you didn't know that and just screwed up, just admit it. Had you done that two days ago, this thread could have died by now. But your obstinate defense of the defenseless might indicate that the error was done purposely.

So did you do it with and intent to mislead or because you didn't know what you were doing? Stop whining about it and fess up.

On the issue itself. You are still wrong.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

68. Stop with the personal attacks. I am not "trumpian" or "like trump". . . . nt

[Jakes Progress]

71. Again. Reading what was not there.

I didn't say you were trump like. I said you were using misleading strategies that trump uses.

If you did it unknowingly because you didn't know about clarity, then just apologize and move on. Don't keep accusing others of misdirecting, when you are doing it.

Look. trump is a crook. He's a thug and a really rotten person. He should have been put in jail twenty years ago. We agree. What we don't agree on is whether Mueller is stepping up to the call of history. We all thought he was going to be our savior. Shame on us.

[Jakes Progress]

36. You put that in quotes. Where did you find the quote?

Or did you just decide that's what he meant because that what you want to happen. Republicans will decide something else because of what they want to happen.

Why did Mueller feel the need to be mysterious?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

39. Oh go on. He is not being mysterious. . . . nt

[Jakes Progress]

44. So you still can't find the "quote".

Seems mysterious that your "quoted" him three or four times and still can't locate the "quote". Do you think it's time you admitted making up words to put in his mouth? Or do you have some secret mind meld that lets you into his brain?

Seriously. Using quotes when they are not quotes is a very substandard form of argument. I've seen it on faux news, but rarely see it on DU.

Okay. You don't like the word mysterious. What word would you like for language that avoids being clear, that talks all around the subject but never mentions it, that seems to throw out hints and suggestions without really committing to the subject? You like to use the words "obvious" and "clearly", but you have to know that those words do not apply here. As written, the text of his press conference leaves it up to listeners to interpret. Without the clarity that the issue calls for, your interpretation is no more applicable than that of trump's lawyers. Mueller could have used your words instead of avoiding clarity (being mysterious), but he didn't. That is the rub.

If he had said: "Our investigation showed that the president clearly committed obstruction of justice, but my mandate and DOJ guidelines prevent me from bringing charges. The legislature should begin impeachment hearings based on the findings of this report."

How differently the last day would have been had he done so.

If he really believes the president committed crimes, he should be personally lobbying congressional republicans to stop protecting the liar. He is one of the only people alive that might get them to switch. I think the democracy is worth the effort and inconvenience. Don't you?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

51. Answered 26 hours ago. You more interested in banging quote marks than reading the thread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12140678

[Jakes Progress]

66. You're still interested in making up quotes.

You need to acknowledge your mistake or bad judgement.

Facts matter. Clarity is important.

Those that don't believe so, help trump.

[wryter2000]

53. Agreed on all points

It might have flown over a few heads, but what he said was pretty remarkable, actually. He didn't have to say anything at all.

That said, I do wish he'd make a repeat performance in front of a House committee. He'd only have to re-iterate what he put in the report. Look at how effective yesterday was. Even Fox had a chyron, "Not exonerated."

[GulfCoast66]

62. And it demonstrates why I love the passion of DU!

All day yesterday those who put their hopes in Mueller to save the day were so disappointed he did not come out yelling ‘Treason’, ‘Impeachment’, or file charged they did not pay attention to what he actually said. Ignoring the fact he could do none of the above.

What he did was way more effective. It shattered the right wing spin of the report and still keeps him within the bounds of his legally bound constraints.

It makes it more likely that we will get rid of trump in the only way ever possible. Not impeachment and conviction. Not resignation. But elections. From the day he was inaugurated beating him in 20 has been our only hope.

One clarification. If he loses in 20 I fully expect him to resign and count on Pence to pardon his crimes.

[wryter2000]

63. You think he'll resign?

I wish I were that optimistic.

[GulfCoast66]

64. Only if he loses and his loss a done deal.

If we win, it may well be a big win all down the ticket. Notice I said ‘if’.

If that happens he knows all the truth will come out. He would, at that point try to get Pence to take over and pardon him in the days after the election and before the Democratic President takes office. Not sure Pence would do it because it would smear him thru eternity but make him a hero of the Christofacist.

It would destroy the republican brand perhaps forever, but trump does not give a shit about them.

Either way the republicans are cooked. Even if trump wins a second term. Especially then. I don't share the pessimism that many here have that democracy is on it last legs. A majority of Gen X, and huge numbers of the next 2 generations live in a world at total opposites of trump voters.

I try to take a long view. Over the long term we progress with periods of regression in between. We are in one of those periods now.

[wryter2000]

65. I see what you're saying

Makes sense

[uponit7771]

13. THIS !!!!

[tinrobot]

31. How about Congress standing up for the country?

It needs to happen.

[cynatnite]

33. He did his job and made it clear that the next step is up to congress...

I guess no one is good enough unless they jump up and down, gnash their teeth and scream.

[Jakes Progress]

35. He did a job and went home.

And he wasn't clear. He didn't say "Congress should impeach." That would have been clear. He stayed out of it. Didn't want to risk it.

Sure, we can all read between the lines and conjecture what we think he meant. But republicans are conjecturing too. Without something unequivocal, they will not vote for impeachment. If Mueller meant what you say he means and had said it without all the ducking and mystery, republicans couldn't twist his words.

I think saving the country from something like trump is worth a little jumping up and down. Mueller didn't.

[sprinkleeninow]

56. Ducking, mystery, ambiguity/doublespeak. n/t

[jalan48]

43. He did his job and went home. The republicans will trot him out again when he's needed.

[FakeNoose]

47. Mueller is not doing it for the Repukes

In fact, I have yet to see or hear anything by Mueller that reeks of party-politics. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there's something in his past that I'm not aware of. If so, please educate me. I believe he's being as honest has he can be without revealing the stuff that he CAN'T reveal. Mueller knows way more than he can say on TV, or that he could reveal in court. He's still acting honorably and within the law IMHO, unless someone can show otherwise.

The fact that Mueller is honorable scares the shit out of the Repukes, and that's why they won't trot him out later. He can't be bought or threatened. They're really hoping he retires quickly and goes home quietly.

As a Democrat, I'm hoping Mueller gets a chance to appear before the House Investigation, even if it happens behind closed doors. I'm OK with that, because Mueller's sworn testimony and answers to the Committee's questions need to be preserved for the record.

[jalan48]

48. Remember when he backed Baby Bush on Iraq having WMDs?

I don't consider him honorable at all-I see him as more of a fixer. Let's see if he agrees to testify before the House, especially in public where he can really do the right thing. I'm not holding my breath.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

55. Complete misread. Mueller is angry that Barr lied about the report & being dragged out in public.

Mueller knows tRump is the unindicted co-conspirator and obstructor of justice, those being the crimes that came into his purview among the many tRump and his mob have committed.

No way is he going to carry water for Republicans (or Democrats). He was visibly angry at having to make any statement at all.

What part of this bit of English would you like assistance with?

we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.

[...]

So beyond what I have said here today, and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it’s for that reason I will not be taking questions today as well.

[Jakes Progress]

69. Where does Mueller say he is angry?

Where does he say that Barr lied? He actually complemented Barr in is speech.

A lot of conjecture without evidence.

Actually, I too think he is probably miffed. My take is that the disgruntlement comes because he feels that to protect the reputation of the FBI, he has to say things his buddies in the republican elite will be angry with.

And just why is it inappropriate for the lead investigator to answer questions about the investigation that we paid for? Why does he get to decide what he wants to talk about? His report said that witnesses who weren't entirely forthcoming were a bad thing. So why does he get to do what he was pissed about?

We built Mueller up into this mythic hero. Our fault. As Gag Halfrunt said, "Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

70. He said what is now the most famous line from the statement. . . . nt

[Jakes Progress]

72. I missed the line about how angry he is at republicans. You did too.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

75. Give up pimping your thread. Mueller directly contradicted Barr. . . . nt

[Jakes Progress]

77. Mueller indirectly contradicted Barr. Then praised him.

You are the one who keeps the thread popping up. Okay by me.

[Kurt V.]

52. Mueller knows better than anyone about trumps crimes. he could have been a hero for the history book

[tymorial]

58. Yet more nonsense. Nt

[Jakes Progress]

73. Yet less substance.

[emmaverybo]

61. You do not have to use the coward taunt, but you choose to, of course. It is unseemly.

[Jakes Progress]

74. Do not make up words for me. I did no such thing.

I suppose you think when I said he was afraid for his safety and reputation, you took that as a slur. Read more carefully. I said I understood that he was afraid. He is an intelligent man, one who knows how evil and vindictive mobsters can be, one who knows the crimes committed on foreign soil by russia, one who knows that this administration will do nothing to curb putin actions. If he were not afraid for his safety and the safety of his family, he would be foolish.

Why do you think he has chosen to sit out his place in history as one of the few people who could stop trump?

[emmaverybo]

80. I stand corrected. I apologize. You said he feared for his reputation and family's safety. However,

Last edited Sat Jun 1, 2019, 03:31 AM - Edit history (2)

those concerns would have stopped him long before now. And as there will be a transcript and testimony, safety concerns seem a moot point. My guess is he does not want the circus televised hearings become and feels he need not be grilled on the report. Perhaps he does not like the idea of making public his disagreement with Barr and Rosenstein.
It seems he is an institutionalist and respects hierarchy.
Yes, these open hearings, and open trials, do get showy and the medium can facilitate the public and the two parties distorting, spinning.
No you did not call him a coward and I get your theory. I just believe he and his team have risked safety for the past two years so once the cat was let out of the bag, no difference. He has given a good part of the election hacking game away, and Trump’s uncharged crimes, at the same time strongly warning about the Russian peril to our democracy, so that what he would say about a report already published—well, why would testifying suddenly trigger a mob hit or spy jab?
He has indicted and exposed members of GRU. A fait accompli.
I don’t think Cohen and Manafort have said all they could about Trump and Russian crime syndicate, or Sater yet, so maybe they have been leaned on?

[WheelWalker]

76. I don't see it that way at all.

[33taw]

78. I wish Mueller had indicted other individuals that he knew he had the authority to.

He simply waited too long and lost that opportunity. Once Sessions was gone, it was a forgone conclusion that he would be taken out of the role of Special Prosecutor. I know it takes as long as it takes, but he needed to act faster than he did. McCabe and Comey are speaking up now, but where were they in 2016 and 2017?

[BlueJac]

79. K&R

Mueller must tell all for our country!