Posted on 05/29/2019 11:34:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
He didn’t use that argument, although his language implied it. But Giuliani did say it. Would you say the same thing about him?
St. Kitts to avoid the civil war when everything hits the fan.
The Dems would never allow that to happen.
For decades we have been praying for someone to come along and “weed the garden” for us and it sure looked like Trump was the guy for the job. We now need to realize that no one will do it for us and that if the job is going to get done we are going to have to do it our own selves. Sure, it’s gonna be messy but it needs doing and no one is going to do it for us. Not Barr, not Trump, nobody. We have been patient for a long, long time.
Yep.
BTW, I cant absolutely clear you of having committed a robbery last week.
Nor can you, I.
RE: Since when does a prosecutor offer the opinion that he could not form an opinion as to whether someone is innocent of a crime that they are not bringing an indictment for?
BTW, Mueller did say that indicting the president is NOT within the options given to him.
Mueller explained that his office was bound by Justice Department regulations that prohibit a sitting president from indictment: “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”
I think the American people have had enough and want to move on. The now inevitable impeachment resolution from the House will be seen as a waste of time and boost not hurt Trump’s re-election
And you can thank Obama’s DOJ for that.
I’ve seen a lot of posts claiming Müller is claiming proof of a negative is required to exonerate Trump but that’s not really what he’s saying. Or, at least that’s not how the Dims are hearing him because really what he said today is nothing different than what he wrote in his report.
What he’s saying is, that since the president of the US cannot be indicted like a usual citizen, without a Constitutional crisis ensuing (because there are no mechanics in the Constitution for “arresting” a sitting president), since that can’t be done, then he, his team, given what they *did* find, in their opinion, cannot clear him of a charge of obstruction.
In other words what he’s saying is that given what they did find, they would be remiss to clear him of the charge, but can’t charge him because charging a sitting president of any crime is beyond the scope of the special prosecutor, or any law enforcement officer really, again because the Constitution doesn’t allow it.
So he’s implying, in as strong a way as he can, that he believes the House should start impeachment proceedings because they are the only ones, Constitutionally speaking, who *can* charge him with a “high crime or misdemeanor”.
But again this is nothing different than what he already said in the report. Now that he’s said it publicly (orally) maybe it will add more fuel to the impeachment fire. We shall see in the next few days and weeks.
But to be clear he’s not saying anyone needs to prove a negative. In fact he’s saying the opposite. And he didn’t say anything new today.
Very Stalinist of you scumbag.
POS speaks of forked tongues and word salad.
Robert Mueller is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. If an investigation does not find enough evidence to charge a suspect, the prosecutor cannot create a permanent cloud over the suspect by claiming they could not “exonerate” the suspect, then close the investigation, leaving the suspect with no recourse. If so, this leaves the suspect guilty until proven innocent. A prosecutor’s mandate is simply to find evidence of a crime sufficient to charge or, failing to do so, close the investigation without charging. Leaving the public with the impression that the suspect still might be guilty is improper and unconstitutional. Mueller either lied today, or he lied when he told A.G. Barr and Deputy A.G. Rosenstein that his decision to not charge was because of the Department of Justice’s guidelines against indicting a sitting president. The fact is, he could have issued a sealed indictment to be opened when the president is out of office if his investigation found any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. If Mueller knew from the beginning that he would not charge the president due to guidelines, then what was the purpose of the investigation, except as an impeachment investigation, which is solely the province of the House of Representatives. Mueller decided instead to breath new life into the democrat calls for impeachment.
If Mueller couldn’t indict because of DOJ guidelines why did he find “no” on conspiracy and punt on obstruction of justice? Shouldn’t Mueller have found the same on both?
Mueller should appear before a Senate committee where they can tell him he FAILED at his job and admonish him for his obvious leaks and politicism and then referred for those Ethics violations.
I don’t think your interpretation is quite correct. When has Mueller ever presented ANY evidence of obstruction of justice?
His own 400 page report cleared him.
Yep. Barr also said he had people talking notes at the meetings with Mulehead.
He didn’t find enough evidence to convict him, so he is cleared!
He has done so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.