Mueller Rubbed Congress’ Nose In It — It’s Their Duty To Impeach Not His To Indict A Sitting President

40
360

Robert Mueller made a number of remarks Wednesday morning, as he resigned from his office and returned to public life, none of which told us anything we didn’t already know — which is in essence that it’s up to Congress to act, and no, Mueller never exonerated Trump. Now the ball is clearly in Congress’ court and that, friends, is where we’re screwed.

Then Andrew Napolitano chimed in from Fox News, and that should warm the cockles of Trump’s heart. RawStory:

“Effectively what Bob Mueller said is we had evidence that he committed a crime but we couldn’t charge him because he’s the president of the United States,” Napolitano explained. “This is even stronger than the language in his report. This is also a parting shot at his soon-to-be former boss, the attorney general, because this statement is 180 degrees from the four-page statement that Bill Barr issued at the time he first saw the report.”

“Is it that bad?” host Stuart Varney remarked.

“I think so,” Napolitano replied. “Basically he’s saying the president can’t be indicted, otherwise we would have indicted him and we’re not going to charge him with a crime because there’s no forum in which for him to refute the charges, but we could not say that he didn’t commit a crime, fill in the blank, because we believe he did.”

The “forum” in which to refute the charges is in impeachment proceedings. This is a clear impeachment referral, which is a conclusion reached weeks ago, but today’s appearance only underscores it.

And of course Trump chimed in, idiotically and obliviously.

The Mueller investigation is closed, but the real case, United States of America v. Donald Trump hasn’t begun.

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support Ursula Faw and PolitiZoom on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

40 Comments on "Mueller Rubbed Congress’ Nose In It — It’s Their Duty To Impeach Not His To Indict A Sitting President"

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
mae
Member

Mueller said exactly what I expected him to say. I am relieved.

Bareshark
Guest

May I ask why you’re relieved, Cmae? I’m personally feeling just as warm towards Mueller’s statement but I’m curious as to your reasons.

mae
Member

I am relieved because I feel this is a chapter closed. Now is the time to move forward. I am also relieved because the eeyore’s were proved to be full is s#it.

mae
Member

Proven? Lol.

Bareshark
Guest

Won’t stop the Eeyores from still whining doom and gloom (and I don’t mean the excellent 2012 Rolling Stones tune that you can hear in Endgame) until the very end…possibly beyond. Even so, yeah, Mueller did nothing to cover for Trump.

Lone Wolf
Member

May I ask why you’re curious to Cmae’s reasons?

Bareshark
Guest

I wanted her perspective, nothing more sinister than that. Cmae is someone I respect and whose opinion I value. I trust you don’t mean to imply otherwise.

Bareshark
Guest

Another brick dropped into place on the wall…Mueller did the job he was hired to do. Congress’ turn now…I somehow doubt that this will be swept under the rug.

underwriter505
Guest
Pulling the switch is something you can only do once? What switch? Filing Articles of Impeachment? Or opening an impeachment inquiry? Opening an impeachment inquiry would not, it appears to me, flip a switch we can only flip once. It would, however, increase the power of Congress to command testimony and get documents. It would also increase the media attention to the investigations. Once an inquiry is open it can be kept open as long as it needs to be – without flipping any switch. I would agree a necessary part of doing this would be to clarify to the… Read more »
Bareshark
Guest

Oh, filing articles of impeachment, obviously. You can label investigations whatever you want in the lead-up to them. Only the suicidal run straight into a machine gun nest. Wiser birds go round the corner, which is why I have no problem getting the needed info through something not labelled an impeachment inquiry. Why let your opponent know exactly what you’re going to do?

Lone Wolf
Member

Why would you not have a problem getting the needed info through something not labelled an impeachment inquiry? And why not let them know exactly what you’re going to do? If you’re right, it shouldn’t matter, and if you’re worried about ‘dirty tricks’ on their part, you should have thought about that on the run up, huh?

Bareshark
Guest
We’re dealing with a simpleton who lies to himself on a regular basis. The more secure he feels, the less likely he is to notice when the boom is actually lowered on his head. So…investigations called by another title, which just so happens to run across information that can in turn be used for an impeachment inquiry. More critically, such a track has a better chance of catching more of the underlings as well. Current events in New York State lead me to believe that if the Feds don’t get them, they will. I’m greedy in that I want as… Read more »
Lone Wolf
Member
You can impeach the same person as often as you can draw up articles of impeachment and get a majority of the vote in the House of Representatives. There’s no “double jeopardy” clause in the Constitution for articles of impeachment. Ultimately, the House decides if there is grounds for impeachment, and then the Senate decides if there is grounds for removal. Neither chamber’s decision relies solely on the other’s judgment, unlike in a court of law, where the jury must go solely by the charges brought by a prosecutor. And again, there is no double jeopardy clause for impeachment in… Read more »
Bareshark
Guest

And THAT, Wolf, is what makes impeachment a one-shot deal.

Lone Wolf
Member

The point is, is that regardless of whether it is “unlikely to change their minds on a second or third attempt, or 25 attempts…there is no set number.

Denis Elliott
Member
I was on the way to an appointment at the VA but managed to find an am station while Mueller was talking so I heard most of it. Yes, he (too politely) said in effect I have the goods on Obstruction of Justice but can’t do anything while Trump is in Office – but Congress can so they should take what I’ve given them and do what I wasn’t allowed to do. That’s something I guess. But it’s not enough. Not even close. This whole thing started as a counter-intelligence investigation and there isn’t jack shit in Mueller’s report about… Read more »
beadlady
Member
I don’t think we’re screwed – yet and hopefully – never. Mueller’s words were very carefully stated. He did his job under the boundaries stated. What I got from today. 45 is guilty of crimes – DUH. Mueller stated they couldn’t convict under DOJ guidelines. “Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view. That too, is prohibited.” What the hell does anyone think he was saying there?! There are charges kept under seal and hidden from public view but he is prohibited from stating such. He can do it by doing exactly what he did.… Read more »
Cynthia Feaster
Guest

Nancy Pelosi should be REMOVED right NOW and there should be a MUTINY within the ranks of Congressional Dems. She is a weak cowardly tone-deaf mis-leader who is too scared and politically compromised herself to fight for this Democracy, and move ahead with Impeachment.

Bareshark
Guest

Novel idea: let’s give this news a chance to digest and see what she does. Howling for blood is the behavior of werewolves, not the rational adults we like to pretend we are.

Lone Wolf
Member

How about…let Cynthia, Mae, and/or everyone else share THEIR opinion whether you see fit to critique it, try to debunk it, or literally just blow it off with a “Howling for blood is the behavior of werewolves”
You have heard the old expression, we can agree to disagree?
Oh, by the way, do you know IActuallyKnow? Now I’m curious…

Bareshark
Guest

Shrug…conversely, you are hearing my opinion on their opinion. If I think a certain course of action ill-advised, I’m going to say so and I’m going to say why. I can always be wrong and will admit to such should events turn in that direction. In the meantime, we’re all going to have to put with each other’s opinion. And before you ask, this ID is the only one I use.

Lone Wolf
Member

It reads more like your opinion over theirs, and I asked if you knew that other blogger, not if it was you.

Bareshark
Guest
Making sure on that last point…fairly or not, I took it as an accusation. But to answer the question, no, I don’t know them. Ursula and Chris Weigant are about the only bloggers I care to follow. The former is often focusing on stories others miss, much like Rachel Maddow. The latter often provides some dry air that is too frequently missing in our current circumstances. Also, it’s not that I think my opinion is better. It’s just, like I said, if I think something is off, I’ll say so and why. My tact can be lacking, particularly when I… Read more »
Lone Wolf
Member

Accusation? No, I try to ‘read’ people by what they say and how they say it.

Bareshark
Guest

Same…personally, I’ve found online forums to be rather difficult environments to practice that with.

Tin woman1
Guest

how do you feel about it, Ursula?