General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMueller was not up to the task?
Utter nonsense.
1) Mueller did not write the entire Mueller Report. He oversaw the task force.
2) The report is 448 pages in length. No one could know every detail of every sentence.
3) Robert Mueller's testimony was too dry, to lacking in "optics" for the US corporate media, and many voters. Or so we are told. But this depends on the viewer expecting a reality television spectacle, wherein Mueller reveals some incredibly damaging information, and does it while dancing with the stars and also engaging in a comedy act.
But reality is not like that. The important thing, often overlooked, is that Mueller stated that because of a DOJ opinion, he could not indict a sitting President.
spanone
(135,874 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It is setting an impossibly high bar, and expecting a reality television performance.
I wrote this yesterday:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212323995
emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)delivered as promised and his report is a roadmap for future criminal investigation and impeachment.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)expectations. This was not a performance, it was a lawyer, speaking as lawyers do, and as you stated, giving the country a roadmap.
pazzyanne
(6,557 posts)reality TV gave us tRump! Enough said!
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Takket
(21,625 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)True Blue American
(17,988 posts)By an obscure Lawyer after the Nixon impeachment and has no validity at all? Just an opinion.
Igel
(35,356 posts)And it's valid to the extent that it's a binding instruction on an employee whose employment is conditioned on abiding by binding instructions.
If Mueller indicted the first thing is that his superior would say, "Sorry, you overstepped your authority." And if his superior didn't, then *his* superior would. (Iterate as much as you need to, ultimately you'd get to Trump.)
True Blue American
(17,988 posts)It is not law!
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And that opinion only applies to criminal proceedings. President Clinton was required to respond to a civil suit during his time in office. And that requirement undercuts, in my view, the argument that a President cannot be indicted because it could interfere with the performance of official duties.
Joinfortmill
(14,456 posts)Mueller and his team did an extraordinary job investigating Russian interference into the 2016 election and DJT efforts to obstruct it. His testimony before the Intel committee was powerful. His testimony before the Judiciary committee was more cautious. And, speaking as a 70 year old, I thought he seemed to exhibit a certain physical frailty. His mind, however, appeared to be very sharp.
True Blue American
(17,988 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)His command of the overall picture was impressive, to say the least. No, he could not respond to specifics of the 448 pages without looking at the material. No one could. So any right wing criticism about that aspect of his testimony was intended for the uninformed voters.
JI7
(89,264 posts)in our history have been similar to Mueller.
this was before FAKE reality tv.
i saw nothing wrong with Mueller and found him credible and concerned with telling the truth and facts.
The fact, hinted at by Mueller's testimony, seems to be that, absent this DOJ opinion, Trump would have been indicted.
elias7
(4,026 posts)It is not meant as a shield for wrongdoing