• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller Left Open the Door to Charging Trump After He Leaves Office

Mach said:
Mueller claimed this? Quote him.

No, it looks like Athanasius68 is claiming it, based no nothing, in direct contradiction to what Mueller claimed.

Barr claimed there was no crime, but Barr already wrote the White House, begging for the job, when he described his Fox-news-worthy "legal" opinion that POTUS cannot obstruct by using presidential power...based on fantasy.

Muller told you via has report, that he COULD claim POTUS is cleared of crime XYZ, if the evidence supported it. Mueller claims the evidence on obstruction does NOT support Mueller exonerating POTUS.

Why is that so hard to accept? Good Christ, we wait two years for it and when it arrives, you just can't accept it? What is wrong with you people. (you people?)
Click to expand...

Because Mueller is arguing that a president can be charged with obstruction even if there is no underlying crime.
Barr is saying "no" there needs to be an underlying crime. And since there was none, there was no obstruction.
 
Athanasius68 said:
False. Barr argues there needs to be an underlying crime for a president to be charged with obstruction while exercising his lawful authority.

And he didn't limit this to the president. He pointed out that prosecutors in the DOJ would thus be open to obstruction charges while exercising routine administrative, investigative and prosecutorial authority.
Click to expand...

Screw Barr. He's not a part of the topic.
 
Cardinal said:
This dual nature of this story is simultaneously cause for hope that justice may yet be served and concern that, despite the Founding Fathers' intent not to create a king, we have a system that effectively puts a President above the law for the duration of his term. It is DOJ tradition not to indict a sitting President, which presents the simple problem: what is the point in investigating a President for crimes and then concluding no crimes, when indictments were never possible to begin with? Barr, of course, capitalized on this in order to create a false impression in which the President was exonerated. And Mueller, a loyalist to DOJ tradition, was forced to find the path between the rock and the hard place: don't conclude that crimes were committed, but conclude that he's not exonerated. This is a singular problem as we transition from a nation of laws into a nation of parties, where impeachment is possible only if a certain number of the opposition party is in power to hold the President accountable.

Mueller was aware of this dilemma, and if nothing else wanted to make it explicitly clear that a path lay forward for indicting Trump even if impeachment resulting in removal from office wasn't possible.



Mueller Rejects View That Presidents Can’t Obstruct Justice - The New York Times

Say the bolded part out loud and set it to repeat a few times. For the past two years, we understood that the President wasn't going to be led out of the White House in handcuffs. It was sort of an open question whether he was going to be indicted (though not physically arrested). But we expected, if nothing else, that if Mueller found crimes, he might say so. Instead, our system is so set up to protect the President that even if he shoots a man on fifth avenue, the DOJ can't call that a crime because that would mean saying the President is a criminal.

That's...kind of messed up.
Click to expand...

I do not like this at all, yet it is true. This is the most serious argument for abuse of the process I've seen. I'd form a Congressional Committee of an even number of reps to sit in and question the meaning of the Constitution. It can be done.
 
Cardinal said:
This dual nature of this story is simultaneously cause for hope that justice may yet be served and concern that, despite the Founding Fathers' intent not to create a king, we have a system that effectively puts a President above the law for the duration of his term. It is DOJ tradition not to indict a sitting President, which presents the simple problem: what is the point in investigating a President for crimes and then concluding no crimes, when indictments were never possible to begin with? Barr, of course, capitalized on this in order to create a false impression in which the President was exonerated. And Mueller, a loyalist to DOJ tradition, was forced to find the path between the rock and the hard place: don't conclude that crimes were committed, but conclude that he's not exonerated. This is a singular problem as we transition from a nation of laws into a nation of parties, where impeachment is possible only if a certain number of the opposition party is in power to hold the President accountable.

Mueller was aware of this dilemma, and if nothing else wanted to make it explicitly clear that a path lay forward for indicting Trump even if impeachment resulting in removal from office wasn't possible.



Mueller Rejects View That Presidents Can’t Obstruct Justice - The New York Times

Say the bolded part out loud and set it to repeat a few times. For the past two years, we understood that the President wasn't going to be led out of the White House in handcuffs. It was sort of an open question whether he was going to be indicted (though not physically arrested). But we expected, if nothing else, that if Mueller found crimes, he might say so. Instead, our system is so set up to protect the President that even if he shoots a man on fifth avenue, the DOJ can't call that a crime because that would mean saying the President is a criminal.

That's...kind of messed up.
Click to expand...

So far the section you placed in bold has been a really interesting twist on the concept of being exonerated because this is more of a judgement call based on existing limitations on the DOJ. It makes Mueller's decision to leave it to Congress pretty clear and by no means provided a conclusive end to actions based on the report's findings.
 
Cardinal said:
Screw Barr. He's not a part of the topic.
Click to expand...
Directly, no, you did not mention him. But he is relevant indirectly becasue he reviewed the activity and said it was not sufficient to establish a crime. Thus the points you are attempting to make with your op are not valid as the activity was already reviewed and was not sufficient to establish a crime.
 
ElChupacabra said:
So far the section you placed in bold has been a really interesting twist on the concept of being exonerated because this is more of a judgement call based on existing limitations on the DOJ. It makes Mueller's decision to leave it to Congress pretty clear and by no means provided a conclusive end to actions based on the report's findings.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and I certainly didn't mean to communicate that any form of exoneration had been granted by Mueller. However, I do think the de-facto gag rule that the DOJ tradition had bound Mueller to is twisted. It undermines the very concept of a nation of laws over a nation of men.
 
Excon said:
Directly, no, you did not mention him. But he is relevant indirectly becasue he reviewed -
Click to expand...

Barr is a stooge, has zero credibility, and isn't relevant to the thread topic.
 
Cardinal said:
Screw Barr. He's not a part of the topic.
Click to expand...

Ok. Forget Barr.

His argument however is valid and stronger than Mueller's.
There was no crime. Mueller was unable to figure out how the president obstructed justice when there was no crime to obstruct, when Trump exercised his legal authority, when it was clear Trump was motivated by his outraged of being falsly accused, and when he worried about the damage such an investigation would cause his administration.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Ok. Forget Barr.

His argument however is valid and stronger than Mueller's.
There was no crime. Mueller was unable to figure out how the president obstructed justice when there was no crime to obstruct, when Trump exercised his legal authority, when it was clear Trump was motivated by his outraged of being falsly accused, and when he worried about the damage such an investigation would cause his administration.
Click to expand...

You lie with such ease. I ask you this time and again and you never answer. Are you Sarah Huckabee Sanders?
 
Cardinal said:
Barr is a stooge, has zero credibility, and isn't relevant to the thread topic.
Click to expand...
And again you are wrong. He already established that the activity was not sufficient to establish a crime.
So there is no door open as your OP falsely claims.
 
Cardinal said:
It's actually not even a law.
Click to expand...

A part of the problem is that IF a sitting President were to be indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced, and jailed, that WOULD NOT remove them from office AND if that sitting President had the backing of 35% of the Senators they couldn't be convicted and removed from office REGARDLESS of what the evidence was against them.

PS - They'd still be entitled to Secret Service protection while incarcerated if they weren't convicted on the "Bill of Impeachment". This might make prison administration somewhat difficult.
 
Excon said:
And again you are wrong. He already established that the activity was not sufficient to establish a crime.
Click to expand...

Not quite right. The evidence was not sufficient to over ride the standing DoJ policy that a sitting President should not be indicted.

That means that there was not sufficient evidence to convict (bearing in mind the constitutional crisis that an indictment and trial would entail).

You should also consider that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that OJ Simpson murdered his wife either.

So does that mean that he didn't murder his wife or only that there was insufficient evidence to convict.

Excon said:
So there is no door open as your OP falsely claims.
Click to expand...

That's not the way I read the section.

But, then again, if someone produced a videotape showing Mr. Trump raping, killing, and eating a six year old, I strongly suspect that my support for him would be slightly lower than yours would be.
 
There is nothing in the Constitution or in statute that cements as law that the sitting president cannot be indicted. The only thing that suggests that he can't is an opinion by the Justice Department in the Nixon Era, which was repudiated within months with Richard Nixon named in the Watergate indictment, and that inclusion was sustained by Judge John Sirica and defended by the United States in United States v. Nixon.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Not quite right. The evidence was not sufficient to over ride the standing DoJ policy that a sitting President should not be indicted.

That means that there was not sufficient evidence to convict (bearing in mind the constitutional crisis that an indictment and trial would entail).
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual.
You might want to catch a clue as to the context of what was being spoken.

TU Curmudgeon said:
You should also consider that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that OJ Simpson murdered his wife either.

So does that mean that he didn't murder his wife or only that there was insufficient evidence to convict.

That's not the way I read the section.

But, then again, if someone produced a videotape showing Mr. Trump raping, killing, and eating a six year old, I strongly suspect that my support for him would be slightly lower than yours would be.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant nonsense as usual.
Figures.
 
MTAtech said:
There is nothing in the Constitution or in statute that cements as law that the sitting president cannot be indicted. The only thing that suggests that he can't is an opinion by the Justice Department in the Nixon Era, which was repudiated within months with Richard Nixon named in the Watergate indictment, and that inclusion was sustained by Judge John Sirica and defended by the United States in United States v. Nixon.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant to what Barr determined.
 
MTAtech said:
There is nothing in the Constitution or in statute that cements as law that the sitting president cannot be indicted. The only thing that suggests that he can't is an opinion by the Justice Department in the Nixon Era, which was repudiated within months with Richard Nixon named in the Watergate indictment, and that inclusion was sustained by Judge John Sirica and defended by the United States in United States v. Nixon.
Click to expand...
And of course in the Watergate investigation there was an ACTUAL CRIME which to investigate. No such crime exists in Trump's case. The whole case is based on questionable, if not illegal activity from high placed government employees based on a gut hatred of Trump. Just wait until the report on THAT investigation drops! :eek:
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
A part of the problem is that IF a sitting President were to be indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced, and jailed, that WOULD NOT remove them from office AND if that sitting President had the backing of 35% of the Senators they couldn't be convicted and removed from office REGARDLESS of what the evidence was against them.

PS - They'd still be entitled to Secret Service protection while incarcerated if they weren't convicted on the "Bill of Impeachment". This might make prison administration somewhat difficult.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that this is true. I refer to Article II, section 5, and highlighted the relevant words:

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
Click to expand...
I would contend that if the president is sitting in a prison cell he/she has an inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office.
 
Cardinal said:
This dual nature of this story is simultaneously cause for hope that justice may yet be served and concern that, despite the Founding Fathers' intent not to create a king, we have a system that effectively puts a President above the law for the duration of his term. It is DOJ tradition not to indict a sitting President, which presents the simple problem: what is the point in investigating a President for crimes and then concluding no crimes, when indictments were never possible to begin with? Barr, of course, capitalized on this in order to create a false impression in which the President was exonerated. And Mueller, a loyalist to DOJ tradition, was forced to find the path between the rock and the hard place: don't conclude that crimes were committed, but conclude that he's not exonerated. This is a singular problem as we transition from a nation of laws into a nation of parties, where impeachment is possible only if a certain number of the opposition party is in power to hold the President accountable.

Mueller was aware of this dilemma, and if nothing else wanted to make it explicitly clear that a path lay forward for indicting Trump even if impeachment resulting in removal from office wasn't possible.



Mueller Rejects View That Presidents Can’t Obstruct Justice - The New York Times

Say the bolded part out loud and set it to repeat a few times. For the past two years, we understood that the President wasn't going to be led out of the White House in handcuffs. It was sort of an open question whether he was going to be indicted (though not physically arrested). But we expected, if nothing else, that if Mueller found crimes, he might say so. Instead, our system is so set up to protect the President that even if he shoots a man on fifth avenue, the DOJ can't call that a crime because that would mean saying the President is a criminal.

That's...kind of messed up.
Click to expand...

Sooooo... that means.... trump is exonerated?
 
Athanasius68 said:
Because Mueller is arguing that a president can be charged with obstruction even if there is no underlying crime.
Barr is saying "no" there needs to be an underlying crime. And since there was none, there was no obstruction.
Click to expand...

I take Madison (the father of the Constitution) over Barr any time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection."

James Madison responded:
f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...63



Here is the same piece of information published in Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 32, Number 4974, 8 March 1867

Sacramento Daily Union 8 March 1867 — California Digital Newspaper Collection


In other words, even during the exercise of a legitimate power to pardon somebody (as a president can do even when such pardon stops an investigation involving a president and his associates ), Madison believed that a President could be be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." In other words, a president is not shielded from crime just because he does something within his powers.
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
I read the quoted part of the link. It's a false argument-- strawman I guess it's called. The claim isn't that a president is above the law. The claim is that one has to show a crime was committed. Mueller was unable to do that.
Click to expand...

This is a lie.
 
Bullseye said:
And of course in the Watergate investigation there was an ACTUAL CRIME which to investigate. No such crime exists in Trump's case. The whole case is based on questionable, if not illegal activity from high placed government employees based on a gut hatred of Trump. Just wait until the report on THAT investigation drops! :eek:
Click to expand...
The crux of the current matter is obstruction of justice. There is also lots of evidence of collusion but may not be actually illegal -- just unpatriotic. Nobody should take solace in that fact.

We have a POTUS who ordered underlings to commit crimes and lie to investigators and the only reason it didn't happen is because they refused to carry out those orders. That shouldn't absolve him. Seems to me, that's a clear violation of his oath of office to uphold the laws and not obstruct investigations.

The only reason Nixon resigned is because there were tapes that had him discussing illegal matters. Without those, he would have served out his term. The current case has a sitting president discussing and directing illegal matters but no tapes, just witnesses. Should Trump get a gold star because his coverup was better than Nixon's?
 
MTAtech said:
There is nothing in the Constitution or in statute that cements as law that the sitting president cannot be indicted. The only thing that suggests that he can't is an opinion by the Justice Department in the Nixon Era, which was repudiated within months with Richard Nixon named in the Watergate indictment, and that inclusion was sustained by Judge John Sirica and defended by the United States in United States v. Nixon.
Excon said:
Which is irrelevant to what Barr determined.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Barr is a shill who was hired to act as Trump's defense, not the defense of the nation. What he decides isn't law -- as opposed to what judges decide.
 
MTAtech said:
The crux of the current matter is obstruction of justice. There is also lots of evidence of collusion but may not be actually illegal -- just unpatriotic. Nobody should take solace in that fact.
Click to expand...
LOL, actual collusion isn't defined in the law. Unpatriotic? Stretching a bit on that.
MTAtech said:
We have a POTUS who ordered underlings to commit crimes and lie to investigators and the only reason it didn't happen is because they refused to carry out those orders. That shouldn't absolve him. Seems to me, that's a clear violation of his oath of office to uphold the laws and not obstruct investigations.
Click to expand...
So don't vote for him.
MTAtech said:
The only reason Nixon resigned is because there were tapes that had him discussing illegal matters. Without those, he would have served out his term. The current case has a sitting president discussing and directing illegal matters but no tapes, just witnesses. Should Trump get a gold star because his coverup was better than Nixon's?
Click to expand...
Wow! Trump's uncouth wonder when he'll enlist the FBI to investigate potential Democratic challengers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom