Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point that he made is that Barr’s interpretation of the law is a rare exception to the broad consensus of legal opinion. Made by a Trump appointee covering his a**.
Barr’s actions and the Judicial Department policy (not a law) to not pursue criminal activity by the President, is the only thing keeping him from being prosecuted.
if we go by your interpretation of the powers of a President and prosecutorial discretion, then any President can be charged with obstruction for not enforcing all federal laws, ending investigations and pardoning people and executive employees under him having more power than the President in the executive branch in deciding that.
Sorry, you are wrong about the constitution. A President has constitutional powers to able to fire pretty much anyone for pretty much any reason under him, as well as to determine how resources should be used, and to decide on what executive employees should and should not focus on. With the exception of per se illegal actions (e.g. perjury or bribery).
Mueller was hired by the DOJ and last time I checked, the DOJ falls under the President. Mueller doesn't have more power or more discretion in where an investigation should go or when should it end, the President has.
so that makes it true, is that what you are saying? There are many with different opinions of this topic. What Napolitano says isn't the last word. Maybe cause he is a FOX contributor you think everyone will believe him?
The TDS libbies are always good for a laugh when they start the heavy breathing over Fox News pundits and RINOs like Mitt Romney, John McCain, Jeff Flake, etc. These are people they would normally smear from one end of the room to the other, but when it comes to Trump, they're regular liberal/commietard heros that deserve a statue in Times Square.
And don't get me started on Sean "but NOT the rank and file" Hannity. A big snore and an L.O.L. from me.
If Napolitano's hairline were any lower it'd be a mustache.
You cant obstruct the investigation of a crime you never committed. Defending yourself from accusations is not a crime. The End.
not only that.....Comey told Trump he wasn't under investigation personally. So that means Trump is able to fire pretty much anyone for pretty much any reason, as well as to determine how resources should be used, and to decide on what executive employees should and should not focus in any investigation under his branch. If Barr or Mueller disagree with the President, they can quit, not charge him with obstruction. It's the President's call.
Mueller is not above the President in prosecutorial discretion. The President as the Chief Prosecutor of the land (he outranks Mueller, Barr, and anybody in the DOJ) can pretty much decide to close the investigation, it's a hoax and a waste of time and fired Mueller if he doesn't obey his orders and that's all constitutional legal.
The entire scope of the Mueller probe, Senate Judiciary Investigation, and Justice department investigation was founded on the basis of "russian collusion" .
Since there was no RUSSIAN COLLUSION....
You can't obstruct justice when you have been exonerated of the original "accusation" of Russian Collusion.
Actually there was plenty of collusion. That is an established fact.
What the investigation was trying to establish was if there was a conspiracy ... if there was a quid pro quo.
The Mueller team did not establish evidence of a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the same as exoneration.
What do we know from the report?
-1- The Russians definitely did attack our country during the election season. Something Trump claimed did not happen.
-2- Trump definitely did cover up this attack, and interfere with the investigations.
I take with a grain of salt these lawyers and judges on tv that say irresponsible things just to say something on the air and look smart.
He can't say that since Hillary never had a trial and he never saw all the evidence......guilty? that's just ignorant. The same his comments on Trump......I guess he needs to play devil's advocate to look smart.
I take with a grain of salt these lawyers and judges on tv that say irresponsible things just to say something on the air and look smart.
He can't say that since Hillary never had a trial and he never saw all the evidence......guilty? that's just ignorant. The same his comments on Trump......I guess he needs to play devil's advocate to look smart.
I agree with you. I don't watch commentators on TV and am not interested in their legal opinions regarding trump or hillary as these lawyers and judges are paid to be entertainers, not purveyors of truth.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 04-25-2019 at 03:15 PM..
Everyone knows that Judge Eddie Munster is a rabid Anti-Trumper
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
