"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[rjs330]

This is true, Mueller stated he wouldn't accuse a sitting president of committing a crime.

This is true too. Mueller obviously considered those acts significant enough to document in the report and document to enough sufficiency to be evaluated.


Many people have determined that the crime of obstruction of justice has been carried out.
Including lawyers and judges e.g. Judge Napolitano and many others. But of course this isn't how it works.

The process is for the House to put forth for impeachment. That is what we are waiting for a decision on.
Then, if they do that, and if it gets sufficient support in the house, it goes to the Senate for a trial.
You are trivially correct that they haven't done so yet. This is indeed a trivial fact.

What I am unclear on, even if the Senate nix the impeachment (if it gets that far, or starts at all) and Trump gets to carry out his term, once the term is over, is it possible for a criminal charge to be laid on a post president Trump based on the information in the report?

Did you take the same stock in Napolitano and prosecutors when they claimed Clinton could be prosecuted? Or are you just using them because it's Trump?

 

[rjs330]

All they're doing is using his words, reasoning,and ethics government policy and the limitations put on the investigation.

What are you using to prove that your position has more weight?

Do you believe it is fair to be charged with a crime and not be able to defend yourself?

What he chose is irrelevant. What he COULD have done is. He could have and chose not to. Whatever reasons he gave for his choice are his own. The FACT is he COULD have.

 

[Pommer]

What he chose is irrelevant. What he COULD have done is. He could have and chose not to. Whatever reasons he gave for his choice are his own. The FACT is he COULD have.

You expected Mueller to simply disregard a policy that spells out that “[a] president cannot be charged with a crime while in office. That is unconstitutional.” ?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What he chose is irrelevant. What he COULD have done is. He could have and chose not to. Whatever reasons he gave for his choice are his own. The FACT is he COULD have.

That's your opinion, which is meaningless here. The only opinion that matters is Mueller's, and in his opinion, he could not. You're free to disagree with his opinion, but you can't reasonably interpret his decision as if he held your view of the situation.

 

[Arcangl86]

I have a feeling if Mueller had outright stated that even though President Trump could not be charged under federal crimes he committed obstruction of justice, we would have Trump supporters howling about that. I actually appreciate that he laid out the evidence to let Congress decide.

 

[Allandavid]

I don't think impeachment counts as a prosecution through the criminal justice system. So I believe he still could be prosecuted criminally once he's gone.

Correct. The problem with that scenario, though, is that when/if he is impeached, Pence is likely to be President and will pardon Trump of all crimes. In order for Trump to face any punishment through the courts, he would either have to be removed through an election first, or one of the state jurisdictions would have to bring charges against him...

 

[stevil]

Did you take the same stock in Napolitano and prosecutors when they claimed Clinton could be prosecuted? Or are you just using them because it's Trump?

I must say that this is a blatant deflection. The B Clinton impeachment occurred 20 years ago.

I'm not an American. In all honesty I wasn't following what was happening with B Clinton other than he had an affair and lied about that.

I certainly find the prospect of Russia attacking the USA election and the potential of a political party conspiring with the Russians to win the election to be a far more serious topic that Clinton's love life.

So...
Are you going to acknowledge that Judge Napolitano, who often has taken the "right" stance on things, is now agreeing that given the documented accounts in the SC report, that President Trump has committed a crime. Obviously this is just his opinion and is not the impeachment process.

But do you acknowledge that this is his stance on the matter?
Do you see Napolitano as being a biased Liberal supporter?

 

[stevil]

Correct. The problem with that scenario, though, is that when/if he is impeached, Pence is likely to be President and will pardon Trump of all crimes. In order for Trump to face any punishment through the courts, he would either have to be removed through an election first, or one of the state jurisdictions would have to bring charges against him...

It would be political suicide, one would think for Pence to pardon Trump. But who knows, given the amount of steadfast support the Republican supporters are giving Trump. It does seem they think it is OK for the President to commit crimes (while in office) as long as it is Trump and as long as he is Republican.

 

[Allandavid]

It would be political suicide, one would think for Pence to pardon Trump. But who knows, given the amount of steadfast support the Republican supporters are giving Trump. It does seem they think it is OK for the President to commit crimes (while in office) as long as it is Trump and as long as he is Republican.

Just think back to Ford and Nixon...

 

[rambot]

What he chose is irrelevant. What he COULD have done is. He could have and chose not to. Whatever reasons he gave for his choice are his own. The FACT is he COULD have.

so your argument is he could have gone against long standing government policy and direct instruction?
And it seems reasonable to you to believe that Trump is innocent because Mueller did not go against policy nor instruction?



I'll ask again. Does it seem fair and reasonable to charge a man for a crime from which he cannot defend himself in a court of law?

 

[rjs330]

You expected Mueller to simply disregard a policy that spells out that “[a] president cannot be charged with a crime while in office. That is unconstitutional.” ?

For the umpteenth time Mueller didn't have to charge Trump. It's not about charging. I know he couldn't charge Trump. But he COULD have said they found Trump committed a crime.

 

[rjs330]

I must say that this is a blatant deflection. The B Clinton impeachment occurred 20 years ago.

I'm not an American. In all honesty I wasn't following what was happening with B Clinton other than he had an affair and lied about that.

I certainly find the prospect of Russia attacking the USA election and the potential of a political party conspiring with the Russians to win the election to be a far more serious topic that Clinton's love life.

So...
Are you going to acknowledge that Judge Napolitano, who often has taken the "right" stance on things, is now agreeing that given the documented accounts in the SC report, that President Trump has committed a crime. Obviously this is just his opinion and is not the impeachment process.

But do you acknowledge that this is his stance on the matter?
Do you see Napolitano as being a biased Liberal supporter?

I'm talking about Hillary. And it's not a deflection. It's just that they want to put faith in these prosecutors and Napolitano when it suits them, but not when it doesn't.

And the other difference is that Clinton was investigated by the FBI who said she committed crimes, but they chose not to submit the charges. In this case NO one who matters has said Trump committed a crime.

Now we shall see what Congress decides to do, but I have my doubts they'll impeach. Most of the house is not for it, despite the rhetoric.

 

[rjs330]

so your argument is he could have gone against long standing government policy and direct instruction?
And it seems reasonable to you to believe that Trump is innocent because Mueller did not go against policy nor instruction?



I'll ask again. Does it seem fair and reasonable to charge a man for a crime from which he cannot defend himself in a court of law?

Well I am hoping that eventually SOMEONE will actually pay attention. I'm not saying Meuller should have charged Trump. I'm saying he could have said he found that Trump committed a crime.

And Trump is not innocent because of anything Mueller did or did not do. Trump is Innocent because that's what the law says. We have a presumption of innocence. Until he is charged with a crime he is presumed innocent.

And I'm not going to repeat myself again. NO one that matters has said he committed a crime. He hasn't been impeached, the FBI hasn't said he committed a crime and neither did Mueller.

We will talk again when Congress decides to impeach him.

 

[stevil]

I'm talking about Hillary.

Oh, this is a "what about Hillary and that email server?"
I was mistaken to think you were comparing treatment of presidents during impeachment process/pre-process.

And it's not a deflection.

OK if you say so.
BTW have you answered my questions???, it seems you may have got distracted with this talk about Hillary and forgot what my question was that you were responding to.

It's just that they want to put faith in these prosecutors and Napolitano when it suits them, but not when it doesn't.

Huh?

And the other difference is that Clinton was investigated by the FBI who said she committed crimes

She wasn't a sitting president

, but they chose not to submit the charges.

Perhaps there was no corrupt intent?

Having emails on a private server is not even in the league of intentionally obstructing a criminal investigation into a foreign attack on your country's election process.

In this case NO one who matters has said Trump committed a crime.

This point you keep referring to is a meaningless point. It is trivially true. Noone is disagreeing with you on this. But you keep saying it as if it has some sort of significance.

Congress are currently deciding whether to accuse Trump of a crime.
When Trump is eventually out of office, we don't know if the Justice Department will then charge Trump or not.

Now we shall see what Congress decides to do, but I have my doubts they'll impeach. Most of the house is not for it, despite the rhetoric.

It seems the Democrat house members are hummming and haring about whether this was a crime, about whether to take it up with the impeachment process as per their oversight obligations and whether this would be nixed by the Republican held Senate anyway.
It seems that the Republican house members aren't even interested in performing their oversight obligations.

But anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

 

[USincognito]

And who has prosecuted him? Nobody.

Who said anything about anyone prosecuting him? My point is that while his fans are repeating "where is the evidence of wrong doing" over and over like a mantra, the evidence of wrong doing is summarized in Vol. II of the Mueller report. That evidence is so compelling that over 1000 former DOJ prosecutors have signed an open letter describing the crimes of obstruction that Trump had committed and why some sort of legal action against him should move forward.

And who is this dude on the internet that says no criminal activity exists? I'd like to meet him.

No one is saying that "no criminal activity exists". Some Trump fans, however, are saying that there's no evidence that Trump committed obstruction of justice when there is plenty of evidence that Trump committed obstruction of justice.

 

[KCfromNC]

You expected Mueller to simply disregard a policy that spells out that “[a] president cannot be charged with a crime while in office. That is unconstitutional.” ?

Disregarding the law - part and parcel of talking points from the law and order party, of course.

 

[KCfromNC]

For the umpteenth time Mueller didn't have to charge Trump. It's not about charging. I know he couldn't charge Trump. But he COULD have said they found Trump committed a crime.

Prosecutors aren't judges and juries. They decide to charge people with crimes, or in this case, follow the policy of the department they work for and are not allowed to decide to.

Again, I can't help but notice how quickly the far-right talking points fall apart when the magical words aren't used correctly. Almost as if they're all flash and no substance.

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't say anything about who you voted for or what you claim to believe. I just mentioned that your posts seem to contain consistent repetition of certain right wing talking points.



Thanks for sharing, I guess. About as useful to me as it being striking that Mueller didn't so something he wasn't allowed to do by his employer, but oh well.


Yep, good example of repeating the claims of right-wing news sources - here we see the meme that there was some sort of conspiracy by law enforcement and counter-intelligence agencies against Donald and his employees because they investigated the contact with Russian agents one of his employees was bragging about.

Loaded with irony and continued, selective reading and interpretation.

Hey, whatever floats your boat, knock yourself out.

 

[rjs330]

Oh, this is a "what about Hillary and that email server?"
I was mistaken to think you were comparing treatment of presidents during impeachment process/pre-process.


OK if you say so.
BTW have you answered my questions???, it seems you may have got distracted with this talk about Hillary and forgot what my question was that you were responding to.


Huh?


She wasn't a sitting president


Perhaps there was no corrupt intent?

Having emails on a private server is not even in the league of intentionally obstructing a criminal investigation into a foreign attack on your country's election process.



This point you keep referring to is a meaningless point. It is trivially true. Noone is disagreeing with you on this. But you keep saying it as if it has some sort of significance.

Congress are currently deciding whether to accuse Trump of a crime.
When Trump is eventually out of office, we don't know if the Justice Department will then charge Trump or not.


It seems the Democrat house members are hummming and haring about whether this was a crime, about whether to take it up with the impeachment process as per their oversight obligations and whether this would be nixed by the Republican held Senate anyway.
It seems that the Republican house members aren't even interested in performing their oversight obligations.

But anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

This really isn't about Hillary. It's about the constant hypocrisy of the left. They poo poo prosecutors and Napolitano when they said they believed Clinton committed a crime, but the use of then whole heartedly believe them when they say Trump committed a crime. It total and utter hypocrisy.

It's true but meaningless when no one who matters has accused him of committing a crime? Interesting. You must really be frustrated with the Democratic controlled house. Some of them are all hat and no cattle. While the rest are just lame.

Maybe Trump did commit a crime. If he did he should pay for it. But at this point no one who counts has accused him of such.

Us law and order folks just want to see the law carried out. We are not interested in talk and accusation from talking heads and people on the internet. We want an accusation from somebody who matters and action from them. Put up or shut up. If your not going to do something about it quit whining.

 

[rjs330]

Disregarding the law - part and parcel of talking points from the law and order party, of course.

Please point to the law you are referring to.