• 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

Cardinal

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
106,766
Reaction score
98,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.

WASHINGTON - For nearly two years, President Trump's lawyers and defenders have argued that it was impossible for him to illegally obstruct the Russia investigation, no matter his intentions, because he has full authority over federal law enforcement as head of the executive branch.

But in his highly anticipated report, Robert S. Mueller III rejected that sweeping view of executive power. Mr. Mueller's team systematically dissected and repudiated such arguments, concluding over more than a dozen of the report's 448 pages that obstruction laws did indeed limit how Mr. Trump could use his presidential powers.

"The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law," they wrote.

The special counsel's rationale left the door open to the possibility that after Mr. Trump leaves office, prosecutors could re-examine the evidence Mr. Mueller gathered and charge the president. Attorney General William P. Barr tried to slam that door shut last month when he announced that in his view, the evidence did not support charging Mr. Trump regardless of any constitutional issues about charging sitting presidents.

Still, Mr. Mueller concluded that it would be inappropriate for now for prosecutors to make a decision - one way or the other - because analyzing the evidence "could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes." He reasoned that the Justice Department has for a half-century interpreted the Constitution as barring the indictment of a sitting president, so Mr. Trump could not get a trial and a chance to clear his name while he is running the country.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

You are going to have a hard time keeping your hope alive for six more years.
 
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...

That is not the argument. The argument is that the president has constitutional authority over the administration of justice-- it's part of the oath the president takes. Absent a clear crime, the lawful actions of the President has to be viewed as his exercising that authority.
 
Athanasius68 said:
That is not the argument. The argument is that the president has constitutional authority over the administration of justice-- it's part of the oath the president takes. Absent a clear crime, the lawful actions of the President has to be viewed as his exercising that authority.
Click to expand...

Read the article. Good god man, you don't even have to click the link. The part that I copied and pasted is sufficient.
 
Cardinal said:
Read the article. Good god man, you don't even have to click the link. The part that I copied and pasted is sufficient.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Give it up.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The claim is that one has to show a crime was committed. Mueller was unable to do that.
Click to expand...

No, Mueller was prohibited by DOJ policy from claiming Trump committed a crime, since he cannot indict a sitting president per DOJ rules. Mueller explicitly detailed this for you, why aren't you getting this correct? I don't recall you routinely getting any of your arguments correct, why not change that?

Mueller concluded he could potentially do two things regarding a sitting POTUS:
- conduct a criminal investigation in terms of determining what happened, gathering evidence, etc.
- if evidence exonerates someone, he can explicitly conclude person X did not commit crime Y, based on the evidence.
(he also describes how congress can provide oversight on such matters with respect to a sitting president, and if the president is voted out of office, action could potentially then be taken).

Mueller explicitly said he cannot exonerate Trump both in those words (cannot exonerate), and that even if he found evidence of a crime, he cannot claim Trump committed a crime because he cannot indict him. To accuse someone of a crime without indictment is not proper DOJ conduct (for good reasons).
 
Mach said:
No, Mueller was prohibited by DOJ policy from claiming Trump committed a crime, since he cannot indict a sitting president per DOJ rules. Mueller explicitly detailed this for you, why aren't you getting this correct? I don't recall you routinely getting any of your arguments correct, why not change that?

Mueller concluded he could potentially do two things regarding a sitting POTUS:
- conduct a criminal investigation in terms of determining what happened, gathering evidence, etc.
- if evidence exonerates someone, he can explicitly conclude person X did not commit crime Y, based on the evidence.
(he also describes how congress can provide oversight on such matters with respect to a sitting president, and if the president is voted out of office, action could potentially then be taken).

Mueller explicitly said he cannot exonerate Trump both in those words (cannot exonerate), and that even if he found evidence of a crime, he cannot claim Trump committed a crime because he cannot indict him. To accuse someone of a crime without indictment is not proper DOJ conduct (for good reasons).
Click to expand...

I admit that makes sense, though the tradition to not indict a sitting President as an overarching rule seems flawed.
 
Mach said:
No, Mueller was prohibited by DOJ policy from claiming Trump committed a crime, since he cannot indict a sitting president per DOJ rules. Mueller explicitly detailed this for you, why aren't you getting this correct? I don't recall you routinely getting any of your arguments correct, why not change that?

Mueller concluded he could potentially do two things regarding a sitting POTUS:
- conduct a criminal investigation in terms of determining what happened, gathering evidence, etc.
- if evidence exonerates someone, he can explicitly conclude person X did not commit crime Y, based on the evidence.
(he also describes how congress can provide oversight on such matters with respect to a sitting president, and if the president is voted out of office, action could potentially then be taken).

Mueller explicitly said he cannot exonerate Trump both in those words (cannot exonerate), and that even if he found evidence of a crime, he cannot claim Trump committed a crime because he cannot indict him. To accuse someone of a crime without indictment is not proper DOJ conduct (for good reasons).
Click to expand...

And yet the AG, with assistance of the AAG (Rosenstein), did conclude such after the fact.
 
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'm sorry but I am unable to access the NYT behind it's paywall, and based on it's recent history I no longer trust it to report the news as dispassionately as it once did. As a result, I have no intention of taking any steps to access it.

Still, I am willing to comment on your summation.

To paraphrase one of my favorite legal pundits, Alan Dershowitz, the Mueller report was going to be written to be as damaging as possible to the President.

That's exactly the impression I got from a reading of the report. IMO it was written to make it seem like a bunch of nothing was really, possibly "something." As far as I can see, that is what the OP's source and the rest of the conspiracy media are banking their positions on now.

It's a report using the "laundry list" fallacy (design fallacy), by taking ten "instances" of Trump and Co. actions listed in Volume 2 of the Mueller report. Each of which when viewed alone means nothing, but when taken all-together could be construed by die-hard conspiracy theorists as intentional obstruction.

This IMO is desperation; a life-raft to keep hope alive. Hope that this whole investigation was not a farce, not a hoax, not an "insurance policy" designed for the worst case scenario...one that shockingly (as some see it) DID happen when Trump got elected.
 
Last edited:
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...

Please note that in his report Mueller acknowledges a differentiation between innocent and corrupt acts of obstruction -
See e.g. US v McKibbins 656 F.3d 707, 701 (7th Cir 2011) ("The intent element is important because the word 'corruptly' is what serves to separate criminal and innocent acts of obstruction.")
Click to expand...
- 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!"
 
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...

That's a law that needs to be changed ASAP otherwise we could literally have a known serial killer sitting in the White House that is untouchable. Putting our country in harms way when he's supposed to protect this country is as bad as murder.
 
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...

Well, no. Read the article again: "Still, Mr. Mueller concluded that it would be inappropriate for now for prosecutors to make a decision - one way or the other - because analyzing the evidence "could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes."

He didn't back off from calling the OoJ criminal because he didn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. He backed off because he's not allowed to indict a sitting President, and if he can't indict someone then he can't conclude that he committed a crime.
 
Excon said:
And yet the AG, with assistance of the AAG (Rosenstein), did conclude such after the fact.
Click to expand...

And yet, Mueller didn't do what they were both claiming.
You are just confirming that.

As to your new claim, irrelevant to theirs....Barr was appointed solely for his view on obstruction... Barr wrote explicitly in a memo that he believes based on stupid, that a POTUS cannot obstruct justice while carrying out a presidential power (like firing Comey).
Of course he concluded Trump didn't commit obstruction. Did that surprise you? House Democrats don't appear to value Barr's personal beliefs.
 
HumblePi said:
That's a law that needs to be changed ASAP otherwise we could literally have a known serial killer sitting in the White House that is untouchable. Putting our country in harms way when he's supposed to protect this country is as bad as murder.
Click to expand...

It's actually not even a law.
 
Mach said:
No, Mueller was prohibited by DOJ policy from claiming Trump committed a crime, since he cannot indict a sitting president per DOJ rules. Mueller explicitly detailed this for you, why aren't you getting this correct? I don't recall you routinely getting any of your arguments correct, why not change that?

Mueller concluded he could potentially do two things regarding a sitting POTUS:
- conduct a criminal investigation in terms of determining what happened, gathering evidence, etc.
- if evidence exonerates someone, he can explicitly conclude person X did not commit crime Y, based on the evidence.
(he also describes how congress can provide oversight on such matters with respect to a sitting president, and if the president is voted out of office, action could potentially then be taken).

Mueller explicitly said he cannot exonerate Trump both in those words (cannot exonerate), and that even if he found evidence of a crime, he cannot claim Trump committed a crime because he cannot indict him. To accuse someone of a crime without indictment is not proper DOJ conduct (for good reasons).
Click to expand...

I have been saying for two years that there will be no indictment of Trump, in part because of those DOJ regulations. So that piece of Mueller report is scarcely a revelation.

The other part is because there was no crime committed. And that is what also being said in the report.
A president is allowed to fire an FBI director. And since there was no crime, he simply exercised his legal authority.
 
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...

"Straw man" seems to be the cliche' word of the week. I wish people would use these hackneyed phrases a little more prudently. In his final report, Mueller all but begged Congress to impeach Trump for obstruction. You only need to realize that proof of obstruction in the Mueller report clearly indicated multiple instances of obstruction by Trump.
 
Athanasius68 said:
A president is allowed to fire an FBI director. And since there was no crime, he simply exercised his legal authority.
Click to expand...
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?)
 
Mach said:
And yet, Mueller didn't do what they were both claiming.
You are just confirming that.

As to your new claim, irrelevant to theirs....Barr was appointed solely for his view on obstruction... Barr wrote explicitly in a memo that he believes based on stupid, that a POTUS cannot obstruct justice while carrying out a presidential power (like firing Comey).
Of course he concluded Trump didn't commit obstruction. Did that surprise you? House Democrats don't appear to value Barr's personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
you guys ARE persistent. I'll give you that. Is there really enough to support an indictment? People who want to nail Trump hope so. Others don't. Keep hoping.
 
Mach said:
No, Mueller was prohibited by DOJ policy from claiming Trump committed a crime, since he cannot indict a sitting president per DOJ rules. Mueller explicitly detailed this for you, why aren't you getting this correct? I don't recall you routinely getting any of your arguments correct, why not change that?

Mueller concluded he could potentially do two things regarding a sitting POTUS:
- conduct a criminal investigation in terms of determining what happened, gathering evidence, etc.
- if evidence exonerates someone, he can explicitly conclude person X did not commit crime Y, based on the evidence.
(he also describes how congress can provide oversight on such matters with respect to a sitting president, and if the president is voted out of office, action could potentially then be taken).

Mueller explicitly said he cannot exonerate Trump both in those words (cannot exonerate), and that even if he found evidence of a crime, he cannot claim Trump committed a crime because he cannot indict him. To accuse someone of a crime without indictment is not proper DOJ conduct (for good reasons).
Click to expand...

Not true.

Mueller wrote this in the report:

"At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,..."

This statement demonstrates that Mueller would have stated the President committed a crime, if the evidence showed he did.

I'd love to know what media outlet is pushing this spin your mentioning, but it's completely untrue.

If they
 
Mach said:
And yet, Mueller didn't do what they were both claiming.
Click to expand...
Yes he actually did.
He was hired to find crimes and prosecute them.
He did not in regards to he President.

Mach said:
You are just confirming that.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Mach said:
As to your new claim,
Click to expand...
Not a new claim.

Mach said:
irrelevant to theirs....Barr was appointed solely for his view on obstruction... Barr wrote explicitly in a memo that he believes based on stupid, that a POTUS cannot obstruct justice while carrying out a presidential power (like firing Comey).
Of course he concluded Trump didn't commit obstruction. Did that surprise you? House Democrats don't appear to value Barr's personal beliefs.
Click to expand...
That is your belief and irrelevant. He was approved through a confirmation hearing.
He with the assistance of the AAG Rosenstein decided the behavior was not sufficient to establish a crime.


[...]

... After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.[SUP]2[/SUP]

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

[...]

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report

​


This thread is nothing more than grasping, or should I say the nonsensical gasping it's last breaths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom