Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I understand that's your position. Mueller interpreted the DOJ policy differently.
Someone is lying about why he stood moot on whether obstruction occured.
No, I get it. You're either falling for or playing along with the whole "but if Mueller didn't bring charges on something he couldn't bring charges on, that means Donald is innocent" narrative. It isn't convincing.
Bolding mine ... Found your answer for you.
Thank teh gods!There is zero evidence of Mueller being loyal to anyone. Zero.
Ahhh, but “when?” is the key here.Democrats are left with no choice but to impeach.
You must be just chock-full of bliss!Obstruction?
Thought the whole premise of the investigation was collusion.
Ok
So what evidence of obstruction exactly are you referring to?
Plus, technically he wasn’t the voters choice! He won fair and square by the rules of the electoral college, but not because he was the voters’choice.Funniest thing I read all week!
Of all of the things that Mueller could have highlighted from that 400+ page report, what did he emphasise...?
1. The Russians directed a wide-ranging attack on the US electoral system, in favour of the Trump candidacy.
2. Even if they’d wanted to, the Mueller team could not bring charges against a sitting president.
3. They could not declare the president innocent of obstruction charges.
4. That it was up to ‘other bodies’ to pick up where Mueller left off.
His message couldn’t be clearer....
READ: Robert Mueller's full remarks on the special counsel investigation - CNNPoliticsOne more time; there is no policy, that prevented mueller from reaching a conclusion on his own investigation. Prosecutors dont indict, grand juries do.
Here from Fox NewsProbably?
I think this whole thing is based on probably. So far there hasn't been any press concerning exactly what "evidence" is being interpreted as solid... just "read the report" or Op Eds one way or another.... just opinion pieces that have no legs to stand up in court.
All this effort, money spent, 500 witnesses subpoenaed ,26 lawyers and no solid evidence. What is left is innuendo, supposition and biased opinion.
If there is a solid case then show the solid evidence to support it. But after these years of investigation with nothing but political opinion as a result
I suppose letting go of the dream to overturn the legal vote of the people can be difficult.
Mueller’s statement concludes his participation in the effort to delegitimize the voters’ choice. What ensues from here is nothing more than a smear campaign against Trump and the people who support and voted for him.
The electoral college protects the peoples’ voice from being dominated solely by high population areas.
There is much wisdom in this.
He's given the reason's why he didn't make a criminal claim in the case of Trump as sitting president, due to policy. He as also stated that he could not claim Trump's innocence due to the evidence rather than policy.I would tend to think, the person actually in charge of the investigation, make a conclusion and be willing to go under oath and answer questions about the same.
If he isnt willing, it gives me pause and sort of takes away the credibility just a bit.
No policy or law stopped mueller, from stating his investigation found enough evidence to support a charge of obstruction. Just as ken starr, concluded with clinton when he investigated.
Obstruction?
Thought the whole premise of the investigation was collusion.
So what evidence of obstruction exactly are you referring to?
Meanwhile, Trump reacts - admitting for the first time Russia helped him :
“Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn’t exist.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0b4105f7ca0_story.html?utm_term=.d182d92061b0
President Clinton was not criminally charged with obstruction of justice. He impeached on that count.
As far as the policy, you can read this memo from the Watergate era.
https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf
The important part is excerpted here:
Why can’t a sitting president be charged with a crime?
“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the 1973 guidance, written when President Richard Nixon was facing obstruction of justice charges.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?