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.
This Trump Presidency has opened my eyes to lots of things about the federal govt.
There are safeguards that some of the other failing countries in the world didn't or don't have that add to the integrity of our govt....but this whole President can't be charged with a crime is a little disturbing. And there are other things that suggest we may not have all the safeguards we think we do or should have.
And I'm a little surprised how Americans seem to be okay with that.
I'm not surprised.
When 25% of the voting public could place a vote for an obvious con-man and huckster like Donald Trump? And then continue to support him no matter how much damage he does to our system of government? That will support him regardless of the fact that he clearly has no morals or values and does not believe in America as we once knew it?
There are ~98000 prosecutors in the goverment now. Maybe 10X that number who fall into the former category. This would be 0.03%. hahahahahahahaha
You guys are beyond ridiculous in your WaPo inspired Trump derangement.
Let's get this straight: TRUMP WAS FOUND INNOCENT OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION.
Small point -- but Trump was not investigated for collusion - it is not a criminal 'term' -- conspiracy. I'm not sure why Trump and fans insist on using collusion when it was conspiracy that Mueller was investigating. Is there some weird belief that collusion is a better term? I'm confused by it.
Can you tell me where you get the 98,000 federal prosecutor figure. I tried earlier to find and had no luck.
BUT That's what I was thinking. In the greater scheme of things -- how many do these folks represent.
Not an underlying crime by Trump or anyone related to him. That is not hard to understand, which means "not an underlying crime" for purposes of the discussion.
No it doesn’t. The discussion was whether the investigation was legitimate because of an underlying crime being investigated, which there was. Obviously we didn’t know before the investigation began whether any Trump people were involved. It certainly appeared that they could be given their extensive contacts with the Russians.
You seem unaware of the fact that the criminals who started the illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign and who proceeded with an attempt to frame him to remove from office were LAWYERS in the DOJ -- precisely the class of people who are offering the dubious "opinions" you find so convincing.
Whatever lets you sleep at night my friend - it's a free country for now. Just keep on believing this until the day you realize that you voted against your own interests.
That's completely untrue. The first 3 pages of Volume II expressly lay out that his lack of conclusion was driven almost exclusively by the OLC policy regarding indictments of sitting Presidents.
Eh, no it doesn't. The OLC rule does nothing to prevent the OIC from reaching a conclusion about whether prosecutable offense was committed, otherwise the obstruction of justice investigation could have and should have ended right at Page 3. In fact, reaching a conclusion was the OIC's specific mandate and Mueller demurred in spite of of that mandate.
Mueller does explain however that the OIC would have tread lightly with or without the OLC rule. Barr has now testified twice, under oath, that Mueller clearly stated his decision to punt was NOT motivated by the OLC guidelines. If Mueller ever indicates those conversations went otherwise, I'd be perfectly content to see Barr impeached and kicked out of office.
So I repeat: the OP's question of "how do we proceed from here" is answered in one of two ways: 1) Congress impeaches and removes the President, or 2) the electorate removes the President in November 2020.
So then it should be easy to fulfill your promise and post a link to a counter argument signed by a bi-partisan group of 371 former prosecutors. So where’s the link?
"Signatories have been vetted to the best of our ability."
LOL...in other words they didn't
Stick your head further down if you like. The sand gets better the deeper you go.
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.
