Christianity Today Op Ed

[Cow Poke]

Yes. It is what the Senate is charged with doing

How DARE you agree with me agreeing with Sam, you... you.... you.... CAD!!!!

impartially

Yeah, McConnel and Graham are just a lot more honest about it. The Democrats did everything in an incredibly partisan fashion while fooling not-so-bright followers into believing they were acting "according to the Constitution and laws". Remember Nancy fooling people into thinking that they weren't going to impeach unless there was overwhelming support from the American people, and bipartisan support in the House?

The Democrats actually manage to dupe their believers into defending their sheer hypocrisy! Good job, Tass.

[Mountain Man]

No, he said he could not say he did NOT commit a crime. And he said any remedy for what the evidence implied was the job of the congress to implent.

There is a massive difference between what he said and what you are trying to imply.

You need to consider the sum of what he said, not just parts of it,

What we know is that the evidence wasn't sufficient for Mueller to confidently declare that the President committed a crime. Then he tried to weasel out of it with his "can not exonerate" nonsense which flips our entire legal system on its head by implying that a defendant is guilty until proven innocent. In fact, as soon as he said, "This investigation does not conclude that the President committed a crime," and the Department of Justice affirmed that conclusion, it was game over.

[oxmixmudd]

What we know is that the evidence wasn't sufficient for Mueller to confidently declare that the President committed a crime. Then he tried to weasel out of it with his "can not exonerate" nonsense which flips our entire legal system on its head by implying that a defendant is guilty until proven innocent. In fact, as soon as he said, "This investigation does not conclude that the President committed a crime," and the Department of Justice affirmed that conclusion, it was game over.

We know that muellar was not allowed to declare he thought the president had committed a crime. Given that, the rest should be obvious, that there is evidence of obstruction and cooperation with Russian attempts to help him get elected. And that he was trying to urge congress to act on that since he was not allowed to per the policy not to indict a sitting president.

[Mountain Man]

We know that muellar was not allowed to declare he thought the president had committed a crime.

False.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/30/72834...ot-charged-him

[JimL]

False.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller could have declared whether President Trump broke the law if Mueller had wanted — albeit still without the ability to bring any indictment, Attorney General William Barr says in a new TV interview.

...

In other words, Barr is saying Mueller could have said that he believed Trump should be charged — if he thought so — without the ability to actually ask a grand jury for an indictment.

"The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office. But he could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity. But he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained," Barr said.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/30/72834...ot-charged-him

That's Barr's personal view not the law. Muellers personal view is that if he can not indict Trump then it wouldn't be fair to charge him with a crime. That is what impeachment is for, thats what impeachment means, to charge with a crime, to indict, to send it to trial. Congress is the justice system for a sitting president, the House the grand jury, the senate, the judge and jury. Special prosecutor doesn't actually prosecute, he investigates. So, that Mueller could have charged Trump with a crime, doesn't mean that he should have charged him with a crime, and in his own opinion, he shouldn't have, it was not his place to either charge or exonerate.

[Mountain Man]

The precedent for this is Ken Starr who stated unequivocally that Bill Clinton broke the law. There was nothing to stop Mueller from the doing the same, if he really believed he had a case.

To make matters worse, Mueller is a baldfaced hypocrite, claiming that he didn't want to say that the President was guilty of a crime because of "reasons", but then he included the "can not exonerate" disclaimer which deliberately implies, "Yeah, he's totally guilty."

What a stand-up guy.

[Cow Poke]

We know that muellar was not allowed to declare he thought the president had committed a crime.

Cite, please.

[Sam]

Cite, please.

Mueller Report, Volume II: Page 1

Source:

Firstsee Second

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

Mueller Report, Volume II: Page 1

Source:

Firstsee Second

© Copyright Original Source

Well, that's very noble and thoughtful of you to try to help Jim, but how bout posting something that actually addresses the question.

I'll bold the relevant part...

We know that muellar was not allowed to declare he thought the president had committed a crime.

Cite, please.

[Sam]

Well, that's very noble and thoughtful of you to try to help Jim, but how bout posting something that actually addresses the question.

I'll bold the relevant part...

If Mueller was bound by the OLC memo, as he said he was in the report and during testimony, he was not allowed to make a formal determination that Trump committed a crime.

Since the Mueller report details at least four instances of obstruction that meet the prosecutorial criteria for criminal obstruction of justice and since Mueller heavily leaned toward impeachment as the legal remedy available -- and since SDNY had already labeled Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony campaign finance violation, the question of whether Mueller himself personally thinks Trump committed criminal violations is academic. What he wrote and what he referred to SDNY include likely criminal violations by Trump.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

If Mueller was bound by the OLC memo, as he said he was in the report and during testimony, he was not allowed to make a formal determination that Trump committed a crime....

Sam, I honestly don't know sometimes whether you're just being a knowed-up jackwagon, or you simply can't....

Here, again .... "not allowed to declare he thought the president had committed a crime".

That is an opinion, not a formal declaration. He is allowed to state an opinion. This is still a free country. And if you have a problem with the wording "he THOUGHT", talk to Ox.

[Sam]

Sam, I honestly don't know sometimes whether you're just being a knowed-up jackwagon, or you simply can't....

Here, again .... "not allowed to declare he thought the president had committed a crime".

That is an opinion, not a formal declaration. He is allowed to state an opinion. This is still a free country. And if you have a problem with the wording "he THOUGHT", talk to Ox.

No, Mueller was not allowed to share an opinion about whether Trump committed any criminal acts. It's not a free speech question, it's a matter of his role as a prosecutor. Mueller was prohibited from such statements because he, as a prosecutor, was bound by the OLC opinion.

Easy stuff to separate out.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

No, Mueller was not allowed to share an opinion ...

Have a wonderful afternoon, Sam.

[Jaecp]

Lol,

See, Sam this is why I didn't respond when that guy kept quoting me

Your case is obvious, plain as day, but the guy goes out of his way to not quote you answering his questions in plain English

Mueller was hamstrung by the OLC memo and Trump is an unindicted coconspirator in worse crimes than Nixon was ever accused of

Ah haha hah, you're in for a bad year boyos

[One Bad Pig]

Lol,

See, Sam this is why I didn't respond when that guy kept quoting me

Your case is obvious, plain as day, but the guy goes out of his way to not quote you answering his questions in plain English

Mueller was hamstrung by the OLC memo and Trump is an unindicted coconspirator in worse crimes than Nixon was ever accused of

Ah haha hah, you're in for a bad year boyos

Tired of whispering from the sidelines, eh?