• 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

Lutherf said:
Please note that in his report Mueller acknowledges a differentiation between innocent and corrupt acts of obstruction - - Pg 373 of PDF

Additionally, beginning on page 390 of the PDF, Mueller goes into some detail regarding the determination of "corrupt intent". At no point in that section does Mueller tie any of Trump's actions back to an act of the President's which was previously discussed. Oddly enough, Mueller turns to an example of bribery (not something Trump was accused of) to describe an act where corrupt intent on the part of the president would be prosecutable.

The way I read the entire obstruction section of the report is that it's mostly Mueller laying out what actions he investigated, explaining why he was justified in investigating those actions, and then entirely backing off any type of determination as to whether those actions were criminal. It was his way of saying "I'm not touching this with a 10' pole!"
Click to expand...

In other words, Trump was not a Russian collaborator. He was a Russian stooge.
 
poweRob said:
EXONERATED!!11!!!!!



:lol:


Nope... no crime there... EXONERATED!!11!!!!!

:lol:

Sorry Athanasius68... your boys a crook as any thinking human being already knew.
Click to expand...

Mueller was a member of the DOJ, which means he was in the the Executive Department of which Trump was in charge.
Mueller actually completed his investigation and his report was recently released. You might be able to find it, and people talking about it, online somewhere...
 
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...
Mueller provided a road map of evidence for the Manhattan AG to tack on obstruction charges to criminal indictments he may pursue. They have a lot of advantages that Mueller did not. President cannot dangle a pardon in front of potential witnesses who refuse to snitch, with state charges. There is no Barr overhead who's view of the law is diametrically opposed on the fundamental question and who waits to sabotage. And there is no threat that the entire team will be disbanded and or starved of resources. No one said 'collusion' had to be the crime Donald wanted to obstruct. There is also Door #2 ( campaign finance) and Door #3 (Fraud) and then there's the envelope Monte Hall has in his hand ... ( tax evasion) Follow the yellow brick Road... Follow the yellow Brick road..... Follow, follow, follow, follow the yellow brick road
 
Last edited:
pamak said:
An impeachment charges people with crimes which are tried in the Senate! The removal from office comes as a result of somebody convicted for Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. All the above are crimes and according to Madison such result can come even if a President uses his legal pardon powers!
Click to expand...

A president can be impeached for anything. It doesn't have to have been a crime.
 
danarhea said:
In other words, Trump was not a Russian collaborator. He was a Russian stooge.
Click to expand...
Trump obstructed the investigation because he didn't want it to delegitimize his election win, nor did he want the revelation that his campaign was aware of and welcomed knowledge of the activities of Russian meddling and Wikileaks, which they had lied publicly about for the entire campaign.

It's also pretty clear that Trump wants to stay in Putin's good graces for his dream hotel in Moscow.
 
Athanasius68 said:
A president can be impeached for anything. It doesn't have to have been a crime.
Click to expand...

Circa Bill Clinton era...

“Because impeachment is not about punishment,” he said. “Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.” -- Lindsey Graham​
 
Excon said:
...
As the AG with the assistance of the AAG decided the activity was not sufficient to establish a crime, you are clearly spamming untruths again.
...
Click to expand...
That's untrue. While Barr falsely stated that the Mueller report said that no obstruction of justice was unproven, the Mueller report said that the only reason Trump wasn't indicted was because of the Justice Dept policy that a sitting president can't be indicted. Mueller clearly said that 'if there was no evidence of obstruction, we would state that. We are not stating that.'

That means that the acts were committed.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Mueller was a member of the DOJ, which means he was in the the Executive Department of which Trump was in charge.
Mueller actually completed his investigation and his report was recently released. You might be able to find it, and people talking about it, online somewhere...
Click to expand...

He was talked out of it because the guy he asked to fire him up and quit because he know that request was illegal.

Your messiah is a crook. Sorry Athanasius68.
 
Athanasius68 said:
What crimes did Trump direct his subordinates to commit?
Click to expand...

He directed Don McGahn twice to fire Robert Mueller and McGahn told Reince Priebus that Trump was asking him to do 'crazy ****' and said he didn't want to initiate a Saturday night massacre' and refused to do it and he threatened to resign over it, Trump told McGahn to lie to federal investigators about being asking to fire the special prosecutor. Then he told Corey Lewandowski to tell then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the scope of the Russia investigation "to prospective election-interference only." Lewandowski refused to do it.
 
MTAtech said:
That's untrue. While Barr falsely stated that the Mueller report said that no obstruction of justice was unproven, the Mueller report said that the only reason Trump wasn't indicted was because of the Justice Dept policy that a sitting president can't be indicted. That doesn't mean that the acts were not committed.
Click to expand...

Now you are just lying. What I said is absolutely true.
What did you not understand about the quoted information in post #25?
 
Excon said:
As no obstruction was established, you are the one spamming untruths and nonsense.
Click to expand...


EXONERATED!!11!!!!!

:lol:


Nope... no crime there... EXONERATED!!11!!!!!

:lol:

Your boys a crook as any thinking human being already knew.

Keep spamming your denials. So sorry fox news and the right wing echo chamber didn't get out in front of this with their bull**** lying.
 
Athanasius68 said:
There was no obstruction.
Click to expand...

I once thought you might be smart, albeit too partisan, but now I know my first instinct was correct. Your ability to reason is impaired.
 
MTAtech said:
That's untrue. While Barr falsely stated that the Mueller report said that no obstruction of justice was unproven, the Mueller report said that the only reason Trump wasn't indicted was because of the Justice Dept policy that a sitting president can't be indicted. Mueller clearly said that 'if there was no evidence of obstruction, we would state that. We are not stating that.'

That means that the acts were committed.
Click to expand...

And Mueller proceeds NOT to lay out the evidence...
There was no obstruction.
 
poweRob said:
He was talked out of it because the guy he asked to fire him up and quit because he know that request was illegal.

Your messiah is a crook. Sorry Athanasius68.
Click to expand...

Oh... So Trump DIDN'T fire Mueller.
No obstruction.
 
MTAtech said:
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.
Click to expand...
And exactly HOW did he defend Trump by releasing Mueller's report? Do you even think before you spew anti-Trump ****?
 
Athanasius68 said:
Oh... So Trump DIDN'T fire Mueller.
No obstruction.
Click to expand...

So ignorant of the law. I pity you.

That's like saying a failed bank robber is innocent because he didn't get the money.
 
Two guys walk into a cigar bar. Polling data in WI, PA, MN, MI is exchanged. Less than 80,000 votes decides the election. Hmm.
 
HumblePi said:
He directed Don McGahn twice to fire Robert Mueller and McGahn told Reince Priebus that Trump was asking him to do 'crazy ****' and said he didn't want to initiate a Saturday night massacre' and refused to do it and he threatened to resign over it, Trump told McGahn to lie to federal investigators about being asking to fire the special prosecutor. Then he told Corey Lewandowski to tell then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the scope of the Russia investigation "to prospective election-interference only." Lewandowski refused to do it.
Click to expand...

McGhan did not just threatened to resign. He put his resignation letter on Trump's desk. This is what made Trump back off on firing Mueller.
 
Athanasius68 said:
A president can be impeached for anything. It doesn't have to have been a crime.
Click to expand...

Ohh really?

Who says that?

It certainly not part of the constitution...

Can a president be impeached for having a bad haircut (just like Trump)?

What about collusion even if the evidence does not tie to the level of proving it beyond reasonable ground, as it is required for crimes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom