From what we have been told, it seems certain that Mr. Mueller documented numerous counts of obstruction. Weâll never know how many until the unredacted report is made public.
âIf we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,â Mueller said.
(Millennials can Google it.)
The letter from over 1000 former prosecutors, of both parties, stating that anyone who wasnât the president would be facing indictments for the actions laid out in the Mueller report makes it pretty clear that there is actionable evidence in there. Mueller felt hamstrung by the legal opinion, so he laid out the evidence for others to make the decisionâŚhe obviously meant that to be Congress, since the entire DoJ should be limited by the legal opinion. Barrâs heavy handed attempt to declare Trump innocent, and to try to pin that on Mueller not proffering an indictment, is just muddying the waters (as it was intended to)âŚthe reality is that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation in ways that deserve investigation and, likely, a trial in a court of law.
Itâs obvious the Republican party isnât going to allow that to happen, no matter how they really feel about the matterâŚthey have tied themselves to Trump as their best hope to continue to keep power. Itâs going to take kicking them out of office to disabuse them of thinking that cheating is the way to prosper, and hopefully that starts in 2020 with Trump losing (and hopefully losing badly). And, hopefully whoever wins will then install leadership at DoJ that will actually apply the law, but weâll have to see about that one.
Then thereâs thisâŚ
Trump lawyerâs voicemail for former national-security adviser Flynnâs attorney: âWe need some kind of heads-upâ
Mueller is a Republican no different from the rest of them. He had more than enough evidence to indict Trump Jr. and Kushner and refused to do so - for OBVIOUS reasons. Everything the Republican Party has said and done for the past two decades (starting with the Clinton impeachment) has been perpetrated in BAD FAITH. They will stop at nothing to seize as much power, wealth, and IMPUNITY as they can get away with.
Ah, that picture of Barr with a self-congratulatory smirk, specifically the smirk of someone whoâs a LOT dumber than he thinks he is
Ummmm⌠[checks notes]
Yup, thatâs bullshit.
I believe itâs referred to as a Grinning-Kruger.
Why doesnât congress hold hearings on this very question? Namely, how was the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president arrived at and what are the arguments for and against it? It would be good to resolve this issue one way or another. The policy seems out of date â it doesnât take into account the evil that is Trump. The one expert on this matter I would really like to hear from, the one person with direct experience thinking about this in both an abstract and a concrete way, is Mueller.
This is John again.
Hmm. Sounds like this at least an attempt at conversation number two on this subject. Sounds a bit like pardon dangling?
Ethics 101-- real or perceived conflicts of interest.
If, say, there was some crime committed by the boss of the SDNY office, youâd bring a prosecutor from another location. Canât have SDNY prosecutors investigating and charging their own boss, right?
Thereâs nobody higher than the President, so how can anyone under him bring charges against him without violating that inherent conflict of interest?
Thatâs why we went down the rabbithole of Whitewater (Independent Counsel, too broad a mandate), and swung around to this Special Counsel (clearly not enough of one or any power to take on the guy at the top).
Not so much âdanglingâ as âbludgeoning.â
Your opinion of Robert Mueller is rubbish.
Mueller choked, in all kinds of ways. The scale of Trumpâs misconduct is staggering. Given the evidence that he obtained, and the investigative paths that he declined to follow, his report was about as exculpatory as it could have been. He actually concocted a new rule, not of the DOJâs making, that he could not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment about obstructionâbut he could make such a judgement about conspiracy, for some reason, because it favored the president.
Excellent commentary. Thank you.