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

[bhsmte]

Yes but the policy also says a president can be held accountable by the justice system as well. The Constitution is rather silent on the issue. So it's certainly not unconstitutional to hold the president accountable. Policy is not law and Mueller was not bound by that part of the policy.
Can a sitting U.S. president face criminal charges? - Reuters

Correct, there is nothing in the constitution, that states the president is above the law and cannot be indicted. That doj policy, came from a legal opinion of a doj lawyer, which some legal experts, disagree with.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you trying say that Mueller would have broken the law if he would have accused Trump.of a crime?

No such law exists.

 

[Pommer]

Are you trying say that Mueller would have broken the law if he would have accused Trump.of a crime?

He would have violated the “policy” of the DOJ/OLC and would have been dismissed for cause.

“Charge=fired”

 

[Arcangl86]

Wrong Starr had the same policy that Mueller had. This policy was in effect since the 70s. The fact is Starr elected not to adhere to that.

Please show in Murllers mandate where it stated he HAD to follow the policy. Please show in Starts mandate where he was told he didn't have to.

The Ethics in Government Act gave the Special Prosecutor the ability to disregard DoJ policies. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1824.pdf

The regulations that Mueller was appointed under require him to follow DoJ policies. The most he can do is consult with the AG if he feels that following DoJ policies is not appropriate. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2016-title28-vol2/pdf/CFR-2016-title28-vol2-part600.pdf

 

[Arcangl86]

He would have violated the “policy” of the DOJ/OLC and would have been dismissed for cause.

“Charge=fired”

And possibly disbarred.

 

[rjs330]

Mueller operated under authority given to him by Rod Rosenstein’s memo, “Special Counsel”.
Starr was operating under the now defunct “Special Prosecutor” law that lapsed at the turn of the century.

They both opperated under the same policy.

 

[Arcangl86]

They both opperated under the same policy.

Except they didn't, and I already posted the relevant laws governing their actions.

 

[bhsmte]

He would have violated the “policy” of the DOJ/OLC and would have been dismissed for cause.

“Charge=fired”

Does this mean comey should have been fired by obama, when he violated doj policy, when he had a press conference, to explain why clinton wasnt getting charged?

 

[bhsmte]

And possibly disbarred.

Highly doubtful.

 

[rjs330]

The Ethics in Government Act gave the Special Prosecutor the ability to disregard DoJ policies. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1824.pdf

The regulations that Mueller was appointed under require him to follow DoJ policies. The most he can do is consult with the AG if he feels that following DoJ policies is not appropriate. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2016-title28-vol2/pdf/CFR-2016-title28-vol2-part600.pdf

(a) A Special Counsel shall comply
with the rules, regulations, procedures,
practices and policies of the Depart-
ment of Justice. He or she shall consult
with appropriate offices within the De-
partment for guidance with respect to
established practices, policies and pro-
cedures of the Department, including
ethics and security regulations and
procedures. Should the Special Counsel
conclude that the extraordinary cir-
cumstances of any particular decision
would render compliance with required
review and approval procedures by the
designated Departmental component
inappropriate, he or she may consult
directly with the Attorney General.

So Mueller could have decided there were extraordinary circumstances. Obstruction of Justice seems a pretty good circumstance dies it not? Did he consult with the AG in this matter? Did he consult with the appropriate offices?

There is nothing in the policies that prohibit him from finding that the president committed crimes.

The ethics in government act is still in effect and Mueller could have disregarded the policy.

The whole point is Mueller did not say Trump committed a crime, nor did he attempt to prosecute him for one nor did he consult with the appropriate AG offices.

He back peddled. He back peddled because he didn't have enough to make the charge. There may have been evidence, but apparently the evidence wasn't strong enough.

 

[bhsmte]

(a) A Special Counsel shall comply
with the rules, regulations, procedures,
practices and policies of the Depart-
ment of Justice. He or she shall consult
with appropriate offices within the De-
partment for guidance with respect to
established practices, policies and pro-
cedures of the Department, including
ethics and security regulations and
procedures. Should the Special Counsel
conclude that the extraordinary cir-
cumstances of any particular decision
would render compliance with required
review and approval procedures by the
designated Departmental component
inappropriate, he or she may consult
directly with the Attorney General.

So Mueller could have decided there were extraordinary circumstances. Obstruction of Justice seems a pretty good circumstance dies it not? Did he consult with the AG in this matter? Did he consult with the appropriate offices?

There is nothing in the policies that prohibit him from finding that the president committed crimes.

The ethics in government act is still in effect and Mueller could have disregarded the policy.

The whole point is Mueller did not say Trump committed a crime, nor did he attempt to prosecute him for one nor did he consult with the appropriate AG offices.

He back peddled. He back peddled because he didn't have enough to make the charge. There may have been evidence, but apparently the evidence wasn't strong enough.

Correct.

Here is the simple fact, mueller could have said; my interpretation of the guidelines, is a sitting president can not be indicted, so i have refrained from doing so. But, my investigation, indicates that obstruction occured.

He would have not violated any policy by doing this. In essence, that is what he did by laying out evidence of 10 or 11 occurences, yet left himself an out by not commenting or making a conclusion.

Then, he claims he doesnt want to go under oath, to be cross examined on his investigation, which is smelly.

 

[yougottabekidding]

Mueller operated under authority given to him by Rod Rosenstein’s memo, “Special Counsel”.
Starr was operating under the now defunct “Special Prosecutor” law that lapsed at the turn of the century.

Mueller had the ability to recommend just the same as Starr did -

 

[yougottabekidding]

(a) A Special Counsel shall comply
with the rules, regulations, procedures,
practices and policies of the Depart-
ment of Justice. He or she shall consult
with appropriate offices within the De-
partment for guidance with respect to
established practices, policies and pro-
cedures of the Department, including
ethics and security regulations and
procedures. Should the Special Counsel
conclude that the extraordinary cir-
cumstances of any particular decision
would render compliance with required
review and approval procedures by the
designated Departmental component
inappropriate, he or she may consult
directly with the Attorney General.

So Mueller could have decided there were extraordinary circumstances. Obstruction of Justice seems a pretty good circumstance dies it not? Did he consult with the AG in this matter? Did he consult with the appropriate offices?

There is nothing in the policies that prohibit him from finding that the president committed crimes.

The ethics in government act is still in effect and Mueller could have disregarded the policy.

The whole point is Mueller did not say Trump committed a crime, nor did he attempt to prosecute him for one nor did he consult with the appropriate AG offices.

He back peddled. He back peddled because he didn't have enough to make the charge. There may have been evidence, but apparently the evidence wasn't strong enough.

Absolutely correct.

 

[stevil]

This really isn't about Hillary.

You brought up Hillary rather than answer my question. It's called the art of deflection.

It's about the constant hypocrisy of the left.

I'm not on the left. I'd consider myself centre right. So please stop generalising and creating an us vs them scenario.

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.

I think it is pretty telling that Napolitano states Trump has committed the obstruction crime. My view of Napolitano is that he has right wing tendencies. But of course his opinion isn't definitive.

It's true but meaningless when no one who matters has accused him of committing a crime?

Your point about bringing this up all the time is meaningless. Meaningless because everyone knows this is the case, noone disagrees with you. It would be like you going around telling everyone the sky is blue. We already know, and we also know that the weather can change, just as we all know that congress is currently deciding what to do.

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.

Fustrated would be too big a word for it. I've never ever voted Democrat as I'm not a USA person. Never been to a Democrat rally, never donated money to them. I couldn't care less if Democrats or Republicans rule your country.

All I see is one group toiling of the conundrum of whether to do their oversight duty and the other group not thinking about oversight at all, just being "yes" people to win Trump's favour.

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.

Not formally, not yet. But again this point of yours is trivial and pointless. Noone is arguing this with you.

If your not going to do something about it quit whining.

Whose whinning?

 

[rambot]

changes and means nothing -

Star labeled 11 felonies that Clinton committed

Mueller labeled nothing

why?

Because he followed the instructions that were given to him and policy.

My, MINDBLOWING question:
What were the instructions given to Ken Star and what was the policy at the time?

Mueller has not said "Trump did nothing": WHY?

 

[rambot]

Wrong Starr had the same policy that Mueller had. This policy was in effect since the 70s. The fact is Starr elected not to adhere to that.

Please show in Murllers mandate where it stated he HAD to follow the policy. Please show in Starts mandate where he was told he didn't have to.

Well that speaks to the quality of person that Starr was.
Mueller indicated that it did not seem ethical to foist a charge onto someone if they wouldn't be able to defend himself in court. Seems pretty ethical to me.

Why did Starr not choose to do that?

 

[stevil]

Mueller labeled nothing

why?

This is trollish behaviour. The SC report tells you why and Mueller's public statement tells you why.

 

[rjs330]

Your point about bringing this up all the time is meaningless. Meaningless because everyone knows this is the case, noone disagrees with you. It would be like you going around telling everyone the sky is blue. We already know, and we also know that the weather can change, just as we all know that congress is currently deciding what to do.

Then what is this discussion about if everyone agrees with me?

 

[rjs330]

Because he followed the instructions that were given to him and policy.

My, MINDBLOWING question:
What were the instructions given to Ken Star and what was the policy at the time?

Mueller has not said "Trump did nothing": WHY?

You tell me what instructions were given to Starr. And the policy has been in effect since 1973.

Meuller also did not accuse Trump of committing a crime.

 

[stevil]

Then what is this discussion about if everyone agrees with me?

This discussion isn't about whether any formal accusations of Obstruction have already been made.

It's about people discussing the SC report, discussing the evidence presented, discussing the SC position, discussing what the next steps are, if there are to be next steps...