Buck: "You believe that you could charge potus with obstruction of justice? Mueller: "Yes"

[kpete]

“Got ‘Em!!”



The video of another key moment:

Buck: "Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

Buck: "You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."
Via ABC

VIDEO:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

LIVE UPDATES: Mueller contradicts Trump, says report did not exonerate him, can be charged with obstruction once he leaves office

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/special-counsel-robert-mueller-testify-capitol-hill/story?id=64508660&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines

[dalton99a]

1. Kick

[olegramps]

24. Mueller is being very cautious not to adversely jeopardize future trials.

He is sticking to the report which has not been challenge in regard to any of its conclusions and evidence. What I have seen is that the Republicans are so damn frustrated that they can not get him provide an ounce of speculation. I believe that the Democrats are also being cautious and correctly so. Muller is not allowing his own convictions to in any way arise and hamper his cold objectivity. As far as I am concerned I didn't expect more and the Democrats have done a great job in bring the most important aspects of the case before the public. It will not affect the Republican voters since they have been so infected with hatred and division that they will never hold Trump and his gang of criminals guilty regardless of the evidence. The only real solution is at the polls and the defeat of every Republican for any office, either state, local or federal.

[Scarsdale]

28. Chris Christie was on TV

gloating that the (D)'s are out of options, there is no reason for impeachment. I wonder what tRump has on HIM?

[olegramps]

30. What would anyone expect a criminal to say other than an other criminal is not guilty.

Bridge gate Chris Christie has the same credibility as Mussolini and Stalin.

[triron]

2. This is a very big deal.

[FBaggins]

3. Not really... it's just what he said in the report

That's not the same thing as saying that he would do so if he was the US attorney in January 2021.

[lagomorph777]

4. I don't think he explicitly said that in the report.

In the report, he said he couldn't do it now, because of the OLC memo. He didn't say he could do it later. That seems subtle but it's a big deal in the battle for truth.

[FBaggins]

13. He did. Multiple times.

One example

"while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office"

[lagomorph777]

14. OK - that's close enough.

But it still matters for the public to hear it out loud on TV from his own mouth.

[Igel]

19. However, the context was different.

It wasn't "given this set of evidence and facts, could this president be charged for obstruction of justice when he left office?" It was abstract.

The exchange was, in context, "Is it possible to charge a sitting president?" "No."
"Could you charge a president when he's out of office for something uncovered while he was a sitting president or did when he was president?" "Yes."

It was uncoupled from the facts of this case.

The editing, as in so many cases that I consider out-and-out manipulation, decontextualizes the contents of the video and puts it in a different frame that recontextualizes it. It's when a literal quote is a misquote because it changes the meaning of the words.

It's one step removed from this kind of exchange, in which A interviews B:

A: It was recommended that you eat breakfast because this interview will be long. Did you do it?
B: Yes, I did.
A: Thanks for the confirmation. Now, about the allegations that you routinely have sex with barnyard animals ...
B: I object to that question.
A: Thank you.

Edit:
A: ...Did you do it?
B: Yes, I did.
A: Thanks for the confirmation....

Reframing:
This is actual video from the leading contender in the primary race for the nomination, in which the interviewer asks if she has sex with barnyard animals:
A: ...Did you do it?
B: Yes, I did.
A: Thanks for the confirmation.

[Ligyron]

52. You're right.

But we should use it anyway - they would.

[AlexSFCA]

22. and he didnt have to say it if it was not crystal clear that trump obstructed justice

[DallasNE]

37. He Is talking In The Abstract There

"A president". Today he said this President. That is materially different and is huge. Indeed, it is these kinds of clarifications that made it necessary for him to testify today. We got the answers we were looking for. Good bye "no obstruction, no collusion".
There is no wiggle room in what Mueller said.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA): The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?

Robert Mueller: That is correct.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

38. Can he be pardoned by Pence?

Ford Pardoned Nixon. Trump is going to be in indictment purgatory for the rest of his life.

[FBaggins]

40. If they're federal charges... the next president could indeed pardon him

Unlikely that's Pence.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

47. But if he's impeached or resigns he could be pardoned by Pence

or another Republican who might run in his place.

[FBaggins]

48. Sure... but so what?

If he’s removed or resigns I won’t care whether or not he’s charged. He’ll be gone.

And if Pence pardons him he won’t be re-elected

[DallasNE]

41. Only If Pence Is President

A VP has no such power.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. IS Big! This is VIDEO. Never underestimate the power of movies over text. Esp w younger voters

[forgotmylogin]

42. I think the big deal though...

Is this is a digestible soundbite - Question and Answer, Asked/Answered - that can play on the nightly news that isn't 600 pages for an average non-politically-interested civilian to wade through.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

11. not sure about that

The question was "could", not "would". It's open to interpretation.

(Disclaimer: I've been working outside and haven't had a chance to watch even a minute of the hearing.)

[onetexan]

17. i would say the COULD was purposely placed, knowing that it would not be Bob Mueller charging the

Idiot after he leaves office. It means anyone in the USAG position in 2021 or thereafter could charge the DOTUS with crimes and obstruction.

[Scarsdale]

29. In the meantime, he is

creating more and more damage to this country. Destroying treaties the US made around the world. He is a danger to the country.

[gratuitous]

5. Just guessing

But I'm gonna say that's not the answer Rep. Buck wanted to elicit and certainly didn't want to create a ready-made clip to be broadcast far and wide. Yeah, that point can be read from the Mueller report, but it's quite another thing to see and hear it played out.

Which is why Fox is trying so hard from the outset to set a narrative more pleasing to its viewers and one viewer in particular.

[BruceWane]

6. YES. A very big deal.

And not even a split second of hesitation from Mueller.

The only reason Trump is not currently under criminal indictment is DoJ policy.

Dems need to seize this by asking how criminal acts by a sitting president must be handled, per the constitution. We KNOW the answer, but this needs to be hammered into public awareness.

[cbdo2007]

9. Exactly - this is what needs to be debated by Congress. Not Trump specifically - any President.

Unfortunately for the Repubes, their current stance on this is completely opposite of what their stance on this was for Clinton. They need to create a constitutional amendment for it though as Trump is showing how this can be taken advantage of.

You literally can cheat to get into office and then can't be punished for it because of the role of the office.

[dalton99a]

16. +1. Mueller clearly knows Trump committed a crime.

[jmowreader]

26. Not "a" crime

They call it a pattern of criminal activity. Trump has committed a lot of crimes, and they fall into three classes: election law violations, profiting from his office, and obstruction of justice.

Don’t worry about Trump not leaving office when he’s supposed to. The US Marshals Service will be in the White House ready to take him into custody as soon as the new president has been sworn in.

BTW, the first act of the next president needs to be expelling every Russian from the US.

[lunatica]

31. Do you mean every Russian government official?

Because there are tons of Russians in the US. Citizens and otherwise.

[onetexan]

18. exactly what i've been saying: from now till election day next year, hammer the message that the GOP

incumbent is an unindicted felon who committed crimes against the nation and obstructed justice.

Better thing would be for the Dem House to impeach him, even if it will be blocked in the senate, as i'm sure that will convince many independents and people on the fence to vote blue. Impeachment process makes a statement that he is a crook and allows Dems discovery of info and investigation.

[Scurrilous]

7. ...

[pecosbob]

8. I have to say I think this is a pretty big deal as well since it will be in chyrons thru the weekend

We know what the report said (some of us anyway) but seventy-five percent of America does not. You have to put chyrons in front of their eyes. We need the people that did not vote in 2016 to see them...24 hours a day until the next election.

[Takket]

10. I heard that

And I really don’t know why this hearing needed to be anything other than that question.

Mueller says he would indict, and a crime was committed. What else is there to discuss?

Impeach.

[mcar]

12. Wonder what Buck was expecting?

[lagomorph777]

15. Buck's fucked.

He can expect to see a pink slip on his desk in the morning.

[live love laugh]

20. The only problem I have with this is giving credence to

the concept that he cannot be indicted now.

That’s made up hooey and it needs to be challenged.

[questionseverything]

50. that is what i think...a justice department rule is not law

n/t

[Kid Berwyn]

21. Gooooooooooooooooooooooooal!!!!!!!!

Not that treason is a game or anything.

[Captain Zero]

23. So. He can be impeached for that...

NOW.

[Perseus]

27. All the talk he had and then destroyed everything with those two questions

I cracked up, I wasn't sure what to make of it, if this guy was actually trying to make a republican point with his long argument, or if he was in fact trying to get the truth.

Either way, that must have felt very bad for all the other republicans in the room.

Also, I must say that Florida has been nominated for having the worst congress people, and the more odious, Gaetz and Steube what a couple of asses.

[brush]

39. Yes. That would be mistake. I know that poor repug must have thrown up in his mouth soon after...

that question left his mouth.

What an idiot.

[jayfish]

32. That Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means.

He just said any President could be charged with a crime after he leaves office. He did not say he would Charge Donald Trump with obstruction after he left office.

[standingtall]

34. Why would he? He is a private citizen now it will up to some other prosecutor to indict Trump

if that were to happen. The one word answer yes does not leave room for the type of uncertainty your implying. A phrase like "If we had confidence the president did not commit a crime we would've said so" leaves room uncertainty, but the word yes does not.

[Takket]

33. Honestly I don't know what else there is to even talk about it

Everything else is window dressing.

Mueller found that the president obstructed justice and he wants the House to impeach because of the DOJ rule.

THAT’S it. There is nothing else

[bucolic_frolic]

35. Democrats have the political power - a House majority - to impeach Trump

They need to stop looking outside themselves for an authoritarian figure to lead them. The FBI didn't lead the Nixon hearings, nor the Clinton impeachment hearings, they merely gathered the evidence. Politicians then used the power they held.

Absent that, nothing changes. Democrats need to investigate further. Public opinion will follow. Once that train is moving, impeachment is easy.

[AllaN01Bear]

36. i normaly dont do this but KICk.

[GoCubsGo]

43. Yet, some still want to spin this as a 'disaster for the Democrats."

[lambchopp59]

44. If it were possible, they'd have to shove the whole tray in his mouth

and just tip his orange head back at feeding time.

Unfortunately, the reality will likely be:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/06/06/trump-presidential-pardon-history-law-clemency.html

[orangecrush]

45. KICK

[lindysalsagal]

46. The dems figured out to pose yes or no questions to Mueller. Smart. No wiggle room.

[kpete]

49. Temper tantrum at WH

Trump calls a reporter “fake news” and insults her personally for saying Trump could be indicted once out of office. He then falsely claims that this is what Mueller corrected at the second hearing today; in fact, he corrected something else.

Link to tweet

[Princetonian]

51. Best OP of the Week. I am sending this to my entire address book.

Mueller enjoyed saying, "YES."