But isn't Mitt factually wrong? In what way could it be it insufficient evidence to charge the president when Mueller or whoever even can't charge the president due to DoJ guidelines? Right?
He can only let congress decide from the evidence he put in the report - which he did put in the report of obstruction -- and that is why people are now calling for impeachment procedures?
I don’t think he is factually wrong but it all depends on your view of trump. I don’t like the guy but I don’t want our country to be consumed with impeachment for the next two years, There are way too many problems to solve in this country. To me the case is closed. No obstruction, no collusion, time to move on.
Where did you get the “no obstruction” part from, other than Trump himself?
Let me know when he is prosecuted for those charges and I will stand corrected. Time to move on.
But still, and I'm swedish and you are from the US so you know this better - but you can't, by DoJ guidelines, prosecute a sitting president? You have to go through the political process of impeachment?
Or tell a poor swede how it works... so I can stand corrected.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
But isn't Mitt factually wrong? In what way could it be it insufficient evidence to charge the president when Mueller or whoever even can't charge the president due to DoJ guidelines? Right?
He can only let congress decide from the evidence he put in the report - which he did put in the report of obstruction -- and that is why people are now calling for impeachment procedures?
I don’t think he is factually wrong but it all depends on your view of trump. I don’t like the guy but I don’t want our country to be consumed with impeachment for the next two years, There are way too many problems to solve in this country. To me the case is closed. No obstruction, no collusion, time to move on.
Saying there was insufficient evidence to charge the president when no one can charge a sitting president due to DoJ guidelines, would be factually wrong... wouldn't it? What has it do with Trump?
And the political process of impeachment is up to congress to decide on, and not Mueller through the report.
And isn't it a weird position to have "I don't want our country to be consumed by impeachment, so when a report point out the President acted in a impeachable way we should set the precedent for the future to not do jack-shit because of not being consumed by impeachment because of reasons"
And if you say the case is closed and no obstruction -- then I guess you didn't read the report but instead maybe got the jist of it from Sean Hannity after bumping into him during an elevator ride?
But isn't Mitt factually wrong? In what way could it be it insufficient evidence to charge the president when Mueller or whoever even can't charge the president due to DoJ guidelines? Right?
He can only let congress decide from the evidence he put in the report - which he did put in the report of obstruction -- and that is why people are now calling for impeachment procedures?
I don’t think he is factually wrong but it all depends on your view of trump. I don’t like the guy but I don’t want our country to be consumed with impeachment for the next two years, There are way too many problems to solve in this country. To me the case is closed. No obstruction, no collusion, time to move on.
I agree one of the problems that needs fixing is to get this corrupt criminal out of office like today !
But isn't Mitt factually wrong? In what way could it be it insufficient evidence to charge the president when Mueller or whoever even can't charge the president due to DoJ guidelines? Right?
He can only let congress decide from the evidence he put in the report - which he did put in the report of obstruction -- and that is why people are now calling for impeachment procedures?
I don’t think he is factually wrong but it all depends on your view of trump. I don’t like the guy but I don’t want our country to be consumed with impeachment for the next two years, There are way too many problems to solve in this country. To me the case is closed. No obstruction, no collusion, time to move on.
Saying there was insufficient evidence to charge the president when no one can charge a sitting president due to DoJ guidelines, would be factually wrong... wouldn't it? What has it do with Trump?
And the political process of impeachment is up to congress to decide on, and not Mueller through the report.
And isn't it a weird position to have "I don't want our country to be consumed by impeachment, so when a report point out the President acted in a impeachable way we should set the precedent for the future to not do jack-shit because of not being consumed by impeachment because of reasons"
And if you say the case is closed and no obstruction -- then I guess you didn't read the report but instead maybe got the jist of it from Sean Hannity after bumping into him during an elevator ride?
I read the New York Times, cnn and local news.
I watch CNN and haven't heard anyone on there come to the conclusion that there was no obstruction?
You didn't answer my other question:
Saying there was insufficient evidence to charge the president when no one can charge a sitting president due to DoJ guidelines, would be factually wrong... wouldn't it? What has it do with anyones view of Trump?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Can’t let the idiot off the hook this sets a precedent for the next president and presidents going forward , if he can get away with it every president from now on should also get a pass ..
But isn't Mitt factually wrong? In what way could it be it insufficient evidence to charge the president when Mueller or whoever even can't charge the president due to DoJ guidelines? Right?
He can only let congress decide from the evidence he put in the report - which he did put in the report of obstruction -- and that is why people are now calling for impeachment procedures?
I don’t think he is factually wrong but it all depends on your view of trump. I don’t like the guy but I don’t want our country to be consumed with impeachment for the next two years, There are way too many problems to solve in this country. To me the case is closed. No obstruction, no collusion, time to move on.
Mueller certainly didn't come to that conclusion. "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” And I'm not worried about our country being consumed with accountability and constitutionality for the next 2 years. Although the dems would probably be wiser to focus on the 2020 elections (pres & flip the senate), I would understand the desire to hold a President accountable to the laws of the land. Trump will not be solving any of those problems you allude to in the next 2 years. He has already started his campaigning. It is what he lives for. He isn't interested in running the country or fixing problems. He is interested in rallies, and "winning".
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
But isn't Mitt factually wrong? In what way could it be it insufficient evidence to charge the president when Mueller or whoever even can't charge the president due to DoJ guidelines? Right?
He can only let congress decide from the evidence he put in the report - which he did put in the report of obstruction -- and that is why people are now calling for impeachment procedures?
I don’t think he is factually wrong but it all depends on your view of trump. I don’t like the guy but I don’t want our country to be consumed with impeachment for the next two years, There are way too many problems to solve in this country. To me the case is closed. No obstruction, no collusion, time to move on.
Where did you get the “no obstruction” part from, other than Trump himself?
Let me know when he is prosecuted for those charges and I will stand corrected. Time to move on.
Time to move on the impeachment. Starting with tRUmp testifying in front of Congress.
Of course tRUmp could save us all the trouble and resign. Then we can unseal his indictment.
There is a chain of command in place. Dems are handing the GOP president pence on a silver fucking platter? Why are they too chicken shiat to take it?
I'll give you a hint, they're complicit. Who was the GOP finance chair again? No, the other one. No, not that one, the other other one.
But isn't Mitt factually wrong? In what way could it be it insufficient evidence to charge the president when Mueller or whoever even can't charge the president due to DoJ guidelines? Right?
He can only let congress decide from the evidence he put in the report - which he did put in the report of obstruction -- and that is why people are now calling for impeachment procedures?
I don’t think he is factually wrong but it all depends on your view of trump. I don’t like the guy but I don’t want our country to be consumed with impeachment for the next two years, There are way too many problems to solve in this country. To me the case is closed. No obstruction, no collusion, time to move on.
Where did you get the “no obstruction” part from, other than Trump himself?
Let me know when he is prosecuted for those charges and I will stand corrected. Time to move on.
Time to move on the impeachment. Starting with tRUmp testifying in front of Congress.
Of course tRUmp could save us all the trouble and resign. Then we can unseal his indictment.
There is a chain of command in place. Dems are handing the GOP president pence on a silver fucking platter? Why are they too chicken shiat to take it?
I'll give you a hint, they're complicit. Who was the GOP finance chair again? No, the other one. No, not that one, the other other one.
If people are cheering this report because the Baffoon is not charged yet is pathetic , everyone including himself knows that he’s considered a cancer to this country not a hero but a cancer ! The report calls him a liar straight up ...
If people are cheering this report because the Baffoon is not charged yet is pathetic , everyone including himself knows that he’s considered a cancer to this country not a hero but a cancer ! The report calls him a liar straight up ...
HEY MAN! SOME PEOPLE JUST CALL IT AS THEY SEE IT!
Now let that man in peace keep on denying climate change and keep on not knowing what he's doing. FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY!
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Quote from the report, copied from NY Times that you claim you read:
“The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
If people are cheering this report because the Baffoon is not charged yet is pathetic , everyone including himself knows that he’s considered a cancer to this country not a hero but a cancer ! The report calls him a liar straight up ...
Speaking of cancer - Kellyanne's husband George Conway had a great Op Ed piece in WaPo yesterday:
George Conway: Trump is a cancer on the presidency. Congress should remove him.
"...the facts in Mueller’s report condemn Trump even more than the report’s refusal to clear him of a crime. Charged with faithfully executing the laws, the president is, in effect, the nation’s highest law enforcement officer. Yet Mueller’s investigation “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of executing undue influence over law enforcement investigations.”
Trump tried to “limit the scope of the investigation.” He tried to discourage witnesses from cooperating with the government through “suggestions of possible future pardons.” He engaged in “direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.” A fair reading of the special counsel’s narrative is that “the likely effect” of these acts was “to intimidate witnesses or to alter their testimony,” with the result that “the justice system’s integrity [was] threatened.” Page after page, act after act, Mueller’s report describes a relentless torrent of such obstructive activity by Trump.
Contrast poor Richard M. Nixon. He was almost certain to be impeached, and removed from office, after the infamous “smoking gun” tape came out. On that tape, the president is heard directing his chief of staff to get the CIA director, Richard Helms, to tell the FBI “don’t go any further into this case” — Watergate — for national security reasons. That order never went anywhere, because Helms ignored it.
Other than that, Nixon was mostly passive — at least compared with Trump. For the most part, the Watergate tapes showed that Nixon had “acquiesced in the cover-up” after the fact. Nixon had no advance knowledge of the break-in. His aides were the driving force behind the obstruction.
Trump, on the other hand, was a one-man show. His aides tried to stop him, according to Mueller: “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”
As for Trump’s supposed defense that there was no underlying “collusion” crime, well, as the special counsel points out, it’s not a defense, even in a criminal prosecution. But it’s actually unhelpful in the comparison to Watergate. The underlying crime in Watergate was a clumsy, third-rate burglary in an election campaign that turned out to be a landslide.
The investigation that Trump tried to interfere with here, to protect his own personal interests, was in significant part an investigation of how a hostile foreign power interfered with our democracy. If that’s not putting personal interests above a presidential duty to the nation, nothing is.
White House counsel John Dean famously told Nixon that there was a cancer within the presidency and that it was growing. What the Mueller report disturbingly shows, with crystal clarity, is that today there is a cancer in the presidency: President Donald J. Trump.
Congress now bears the solemn constitutional duty to excise that cancer without delay.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
If people are cheering this report because the Baffoon is not charged yet is pathetic , everyone including himself knows that he’s considered a cancer to this country not a hero but a cancer ! The report calls him a liar straight up ...
Speaking of cancer - Kellyanne's husband George Conway had a great Op Ed piece in WaPo yesterday:
"...the facts in Mueller’s report condemn Trump even more than the report’s refusal to clear him of a crime. Charged with faithfully executing the laws, the president is, in effect, the nation’s highest law enforcement officer. Yet Mueller’s investigation “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of executing undue influence over law enforcement investigations.”
Trump tried to “limit the scope of the investigation.” He tried to discourage witnesses from cooperating with the government through “suggestions of possible future pardons.” He engaged in “direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.” A fair reading of the special counsel’s narrative is that “the likely effect” of these acts was “to intimidate witnesses or to alter their testimony,” with the result that “the justice system’s integrity [was] threatened.” Page after page, act after act, Mueller’s report describes a relentless torrent of such obstructive activity by Trump.
Contrast poor Richard M. Nixon. He was almost certain to be impeached, and removed from office, after the infamous “smoking gun” tape came out. On that tape, the president is heard directing his chief of staff to get the CIA director, Richard Helms, to tell the FBI “don’t go any further into this case” — Watergate — for national security reasons. That order never went anywhere, because Helms ignored it.
Other than that, Nixon was mostly passive — at least compared with Trump. For the most part, the Watergate tapes showed that Nixon had “acquiesced in the cover-up” after the fact. Nixon had no advance knowledge of the break-in. His aides were the driving force behind the obstruction.
Trump, on the other hand, was a one-man show. His aides tried to stop him, according to Mueller: “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”
As for Trump’s supposed defense that there was no underlying “collusion” crime, well, as the special counsel points out, it’s not a defense, even in a criminal prosecution. But it’s actually unhelpful in the comparison to Watergate. The underlying crime in Watergate was a clumsy, third-rate burglary in an election campaign that turned out to be a landslide.
The investigation that Trump tried to interfere with here, to protect his own personal interests, was in significant part an investigation of how a hostile foreign power interfered with our democracy. If that’s not putting personal interests above a presidential duty to the nation, nothing is.
White House counsel John Dean famously told Nixon that there was a cancer within the presidency and that it was growing. What the Mueller report disturbingly shows, with crystal clarity, is that today there is a cancer in the presidency: President Donald J. Trump.
Congress now bears the solemn constitutional duty to excise that cancer without delay.
Eh, the enemy of my enemy is my friend for now. G. Conway gets under DonDon's skin and also makes a lot of salient points. It also must drive Zombie Barbie crazy when he writes these things, or tweets about Drumpf.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Quote from the report, copied from NY Times that you claim you read:
“The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
On the flip side if there was enough evidence to say he clearly committed obstruction of justice then they would have stated that too.
Quote from the report, copied from NY Times that you claim you read:
“The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
On the flip side if there was enough evidence to say he clearly committed obstruction of justice then they would have stated that too.
He explained why he wouldn't do that though. From Volume II (the Obstruction section), page 1:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a cr iminal investigation during the President's term is permissible .3 The OLC
opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. 4 And if
individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at
this time. Given tho se considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in
safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system , we conducted a thorough factual
investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary
materials were available.
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report ,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term ,
OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy, " and if an
indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to
govern." 6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the
person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
So right off the bat, on page 1 of Volume II, the very first thing he said was that he wouldn't be indicting a sitting president and would accept the OLC's legal conclusion. So this was never going to be a criminal indictment against a sitting president. I think Mueller stated is as clearly as he possibly could without crossing the threshold to accusations of criminal activity. Trump clearly obstructed. He needs to be held accountable.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Quote from the report, copied from NY Times that you claim you read:
“The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
On the flip side if there was enough evidence to say he clearly committed obstruction of justice then they would have stated that too.
He explained why he wouldn't do that though. From Volume II (the Obstruction section), page 1:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a cr iminal investigation during the President's term is permissible .3 The OLC
opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. 4 And if
individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at
this time. Given tho se considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in
safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system , we conducted a thorough factual
investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary
materials were available.
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report ,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term ,
OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy, " and if an
indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to
govern." 6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the
person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
So right off the bat, on page 1 of Volume II, the very first thing he said was that he wouldn't be indicting a sitting president and would accept the OLC's legal conclusion. So this was never going to be a criminal indictment against a sitting president. I think Mueller stated is as clearly as he possibly could without crossing the threshold to accusations of criminal activity. Trump clearly obstructed. He needs to be held accountable.
I disagree, just like whitewater and lewinsky to me it is time to move on. Enough.
Quote from the report, copied from NY Times that you claim you read:
“The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
On the flip side if there was enough evidence to say he clearly committed obstruction of justice then they would have stated that too.
He explained why he wouldn't do that though. From Volume II (the Obstruction section), page 1:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a cr iminal investigation during the President's term is permissible .3 The OLC
opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. 4 And if
individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at
this time. Given tho se considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in
safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system , we conducted a thorough factual
investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary
materials were available.
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report ,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term ,
OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy, " and if an
indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to
govern." 6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the
person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
So right off the bat, on page 1 of Volume II, the very first thing he said was that he wouldn't be indicting a sitting president and would accept the OLC's legal conclusion. So this was never going to be a criminal indictment against a sitting president. I think Mueller stated is as clearly as he possibly could without crossing the threshold to accusations of criminal activity. Trump clearly obstructed. He needs to be held accountable.
I disagree, just like whitewater and lewinsky to me it is time to move on. Enough.
Well, the Clinton stuff had a little follow-on activity post-Ken Starr's pornographic report. I only ask for the same in this instance, since what Trump has done these past 2 years is miles beyond what Bill did. 448 pages of lies, deception, obfuscation, skirting of the laws, likely violations of law, obstruction (make no mistake, it is in there), passive collusion with Russia to affect the 2016 campaign results (they didn't necessarily criminally and actively conspire, but they were certainly participants, even if unwittingly).
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Quote from the report, copied from NY Times that you claim you read:
“The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
On the flip side if there was enough evidence to say he clearly committed obstruction of justice then they would have stated that too.
He explained why he wouldn't do that though. From Volume II (the Obstruction section), page 1:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a cr iminal investigation during the President's term is permissible .3 The OLC
opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. 4 And if
individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at
this time. Given tho se considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in
safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system , we conducted a thorough factual
investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary
materials were available.
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought ,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report ,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term ,
OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy, " and if an
indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to
govern." 6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the
person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
So right off the bat, on page 1 of Volume II, the very first thing he said was that he wouldn't be indicting a sitting president and would accept the OLC's legal conclusion. So this was never going to be a criminal indictment against a sitting president. I think Mueller stated is as clearly as he possibly could without crossing the threshold to accusations of criminal activity. Trump clearly obstructed. He needs to be held accountable.
I disagree, just like whitewater and lewinsky to me it is time to move on. Enough.
Well, the Clinton stuff had a little follow-on activity post-Ken Starr's pornographic report. I only ask for the same in this instance, since what Trump has done these past 2 years is miles beyond what Bill did. 448 pages of lies, deception, obfuscation, skirting of the laws, likely violations of law, obstruction (make no mistake, it is in there), passive collusion with Russia to affect the 2016 campaign results (they didn't necessarily criminally and actively conspire, but they were certainly participants, even if unwittingly).
I don’t know bud, our country is so damn different now compared to 96-98. I think if impeachment went forward the left and right would grow further apart and nothing would get done in this country. I know you don’t believe in him but I d like to believe that moving forward he would do what is best for the country rather than be consumed with impeachment. Just my two cents. Go Biden!
Eh, the enemy of my enemy is my friend for now. G. Conway gets under DonDon's skin and also makes a lot of salient points. It also must drive Zombie Barbie crazy when he writes these things, or tweets about Drumpf.
When has trump ever responded to conway? Once, after someone called him out on it. It's all an act with that couple. Don't trust him any further than I can throw him.
Eh, the enemy of my enemy is my friend for now. G. Conway gets under DonDon's skin and also makes a lot of salient points. It also must drive Zombie Barbie crazy when he writes these things, or tweets about Drumpf.
When has trump ever responded to conway? Once, after someone called him out on it. It's all an act with that couple. Don't trust him any further than I can throw him.
That would be a weird act given how thin-skinned Trump is.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
So the statue of limitations on most of the evidence laid out in the report expire 2022 , which make 2020 way more important if he looses he can be charged & prosecuted as a civilian citizen ! So how much do you think he’s willing to pay Russia to help him get re-elected?
Easy for a senator to insist on impeachment when the house handles it. Lol
No doubt , she’s asking the house to start the process not demanding it and yes even if the house voted to impeach it would die in the senate but it’s still the right thing to do !
Comments
Or tell a poor swede how it works... so I can stand corrected.
You didn't answer my other question:
Saying there was insufficient evidence to charge the president when no one can charge a sitting president due to DoJ guidelines, would be factually wrong... wouldn't it? What has it do with anyones view of Trump?
And I'm not worried about our country being consumed with accountability and constitutionality for the next 2 years. Although the dems would probably be wiser to focus on the 2020 elections (pres & flip the senate), I would understand the desire to hold a President accountable to the laws of the land.
Trump will not be solving any of those problems you allude to in the next 2 years. He has already started his campaigning. It is what he lives for. He isn't interested in running the country or fixing problems. He is interested in rallies, and "winning".
Of course tRUmp could save us all the trouble and resign. Then we can unseal his indictment.
There is a chain of command in place. Dems are handing the GOP president pence on a silver fucking platter? Why are they too chicken shiat to take it?
I'll give you a hint, they're complicit. Who was the GOP finance chair again? No, the other one. No, not that one, the other other one.
Now let that man in peace keep on denying climate change and keep on not knowing what he's doing. FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY!
“The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
George Conway: Trump is a cancer on the presidency. Congress should remove him.
"...the facts in Mueller’s report condemn Trump even more than the report’s refusal to clear him of a crime. Charged with faithfully executing the laws, the president is, in effect, the nation’s highest law enforcement officer. Yet Mueller’s investigation “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of executing undue influence over law enforcement investigations.”
Trump tried to “limit the scope of the investigation.” He tried to discourage witnesses from cooperating with the government through “suggestions of possible future pardons.” He engaged in “direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.” A fair reading of the special counsel’s narrative is that “the likely effect” of these acts was “to intimidate witnesses or to alter their testimony,” with the result that “the justice system’s integrity [was] threatened.” Page after page, act after act, Mueller’s report describes a relentless torrent of such obstructive activity by Trump.
Contrast poor Richard M. Nixon. He was almost certain to be impeached, and removed from office, after the infamous “smoking gun” tape came out. On that tape, the president is heard directing his chief of staff to get the CIA director, Richard Helms, to tell the FBI “don’t go any further into this case” — Watergate — for national security reasons. That order never went anywhere, because Helms ignored it.
Other than that, Nixon was mostly passive — at least compared with Trump. For the most part, the Watergate tapes showed that Nixon had “acquiesced in the cover-up” after the fact. Nixon had no advance knowledge of the break-in. His aides were the driving force behind the obstruction.
Trump, on the other hand, was a one-man show. His aides tried to stop him, according to Mueller: “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”
As for Trump’s supposed defense that there was no underlying “collusion” crime, well, as the special counsel points out, it’s not a defense, even in a criminal prosecution. But it’s actually unhelpful in the comparison to Watergate. The underlying crime in Watergate was a clumsy, third-rate burglary in an election campaign that turned out to be a landslide.
The investigation that Trump tried to interfere with here, to protect his own personal interests, was in significant part an investigation of how a hostile foreign power interfered with our democracy. If that’s not putting personal interests above a presidential duty to the nation, nothing is.
White House counsel John Dean famously told Nixon that there was a cancer within the presidency and that it was growing. What the Mueller report disturbingly shows, with crystal clarity, is that today there is a cancer in the presidency: President Donald J. Trump.
Congress now bears the solemn constitutional duty to excise that cancer without delay.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Even this man’s reputation will be stained!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©