Presidential Election 2020

[Guisslapp]

When did DOJ policy change? Ken Starr was SC and was able to have Clinton charged. Why couldn't Mueller have done same with Trump if there was evidence to support it?

I get it. We all know you hate Trump, but you may have to deal with him until 2024.

A lot changed after the Starr Report. A whole new set of regulations.

But the specific policy has been in place in its current form since 2000.
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/...al-prosecution

You still haven’t read the report, obviously. Nevertheless, Mueller explained his reasoning for not making a charging decision with respect to Trump again today.


“Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider,” Mueller explained, adding that “it would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.”

"The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse the president of wrongdoing," Mueller said Wednesday, echoing his report which states that Congress "may apply obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."

“We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller added. “That is the office’s final position.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/spe...ure-to-testify

Mueller played it by the book.

[dawg80]

I hold two opposing views on whether a POTUS can be charged with a crime. Yes, I said "opposing."

First, prezzes in the past have committed crimes and/or taken liberties with laws, the Constitution, and traditional executive actions. Lincoln is probably the worst! FDR committed crimes and violated the role of the Executive Branch, circumventing Congress, and I remember seeing an article that listed something every POTUS has done...some worst than others.

Given that, yes, I think a POTUS should be held accountable for crimes committed, IF they are indeed crimes and not the violation of some arbitrary policy. A POTUS, if truly guilty of a crime, should be removed from office and the VP sworn in, provided the VP was not also guilty. BUT! only if they are real crimes and proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Well, as I said, I hold opposing views. Lincoln was guilty of real crimes, but given what was going on, and given historians universally agree it was his leadership that kept the nation together, the North, back then, could be forgiven for choosing to look the other way. Ditto with FDR. His leadership during WWII was crucial! History WOULD have been quite different with a weaker POTUS in the WH back then.

Fast forward...I, and about 65 million other Americans, are willing to overlook some minor indiscretions (if there are any...) because President Donald J. Trump is absolutely kicking ass on behalf of real Americans and this nation! This is the "opposing" view I mentioned. I think a sitting Prez can be removed if they suck! Like obummer, who is guilty of numerous crimes. Slick Willy was found guilty of 13 charges, and he skated by on the sale of missile guidance technology to the Chicoms, when he should have been shot by a firing squad for it! As I have posted before...Billy Klinton's 8-year tenure is the single best for any POTUS in history for the economy. Reagan's 8 years is a close 2nd. obummer's is the worst!

Short of some really heinous crime...like a POTUS pulling out a gun and murdering someone on national TV...we should look at the alleged crime(s) and weigh that against how effective he is being.

Hey, I said I hold an opposing POV!

[FriscoDog]

I hold two opposing views on whether a POTUS can be charged with a crime. Yes, I said "opposing."

First, prezzes in the past have committed crimes and/or taken liberties with laws, the Constitution, and traditional executive actions. Lincoln is probably the worst! FDR committed crimes and violated the role of the Executive Branch, circumventing Congress, and I remember seeing an article that listed something every POTUS has done...some worst than others.

Given that, yes, I think a POTUS should be held accountable for crimes committed, IF they are indeed crimes and not the violation of some arbitrary policy. A POTUS, if truly guilty of a crime, should be removed from office and the VP sworn in, provided the VP was not also guilty. BUT! only if they are real crimes and proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Well, as I said, I hold opposing views. Lincoln was guilty of real crimes, but given what was going on, and given historians universally agree it was his leadership that kept the nation together, the North, back then, could be forgiven for choosing to look the other way. Ditto with FDR. His leadership during WWII was crucial! History WOULD have been quite different with a weaker POTUS in the WH back then.

Fast forward...I, and about 65 million other Americans, are willing to overlook some minor indiscretions (if there are any...) because President Donald J. Trump is absolutely kicking ass on behalf of real Americans and this nation! This is the "opposing" view I mentioned. I think a sitting Prez can be removed if they suck! Like obummer, who is guilty of numerous crimes. Slick Willy was found guilty of 13 charges, and he skated by on the sale of missile guidance technology to the Chicoms, when he should have been shot by a firing squad for it! As I have posted before...Billy Klinton's 8-year tenure is the single best for any POTUS in history for the economy. Reagan's 8 years is a close 2nd. obummer's is the worst!

Short of some really heinous crime...like a POTUS pulling out a gun and murdering someone on national TV...we should look at the alleged crime(s) and weigh that against how effective he is being.

Hey, I said I hold an opposing POV!

I agree with you on what you said. If Trump was proven to be guilty of a crime then he should be removed from office. To use Guissy's quote above: “We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller added. “That is the office’s final position.”

If they could reach a determination then Trump should be held accountable. I also believe that the entire spying should be looked into and any abuses should also hold those people accountable. Examples of people who should be held accountable are: Comey, Breenan, Clapper, Strozk, Page, Ohr, Nelly Ohr, and any others who were part of this. The standard should be the same across all parties.

I think the media has been an accessory to a lot of what has gone on. I'm hoping the Covington kid's lawsuits against major media outlets is painful for them. I doubt he will be the hundreds of millions he is asking for, but I want it to hurt for their blatant misrepresentation of this young man.

[DONW]

Mueller must have made a deal with Nadler. He told both Barr and Rosenstein that it didn't matter to him that the President couldn't be indicted and that would not affect his investigation. Nadler wanted Mueller to testify before the House committee, but, he knew that if he did, he wouldn't get the answers that he wanted. Mueller would be guilty of lying to congress if he told congress a contradicting statement of what he said today. Instead, he lied to the American people. I don't think Barr will let him off the hook for lying, but, it doesn't surprise me. He was determined to get Trump when he picked those 15 democrats to lead the investigation . It really doesn't make a difference, though, because the senate will never vote to impeach. Impeaching Trump in the house will do one thing, bring out more voters for Trump.

[Guisslapp]

I agree with you on what you said. If Trump was proven to be guilty of a crime then he should be removed from office. To use Guissy's quote above: “We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller added. “That is the office’s final position.”

If they could reach a determination then Trump should be held accountable. I also believe that the entire spying should be looked into and any abuses should also hold those people accountable. Examples of people who should be held accountable are: Comey, Breenan, Clapper, Strozk, Page, Ohr, Nelly Ohr, and any others who were part of this. The standard should be the same across all parties.

I think the media has been an accessory to a lot of what has gone on. I'm hoping the Covington kid's lawsuits against major media outlets is painful for them. I doubt he will be the hundreds of millions he is asking for, but I want it to hurt for their blatant misrepresentation of this young man.

It is Congress’s job to make the determination. The DOJ by its own policy and for other basic fairness reasons cannot make such a determination in the affirmative. That is what Mueller said in the report and again today.

[Guisslapp]

Mueller must have made a deal with Nadler. He told both Barr and Rosenstein that it didn't matter to him that the President couldn't be indicted and that would not affect his investigation. Nadler wanted Mueller to testify before the House committee, but, he knew that if he did, he wouldn't get the answers that he wanted. Mueller would be guilty of lying to congress if he told congress a contradicting statement of what he said today. Instead, he lied to the American people. I don't think Barr will let him off the hook for lying, but, it doesn't surprise me. He was determined to get Trump when he picked those 15 democrats to lead the investigation . It really doesn't make a difference, though, because the senate will never vote to impeach. Impeaching Trump in the house will do one thing, bring out more voters for Trump.

Why do you think he told Barr and Rosenstein that?

[DONW]

Why do you think he told Barr and Rosenstein that?

That's what Barr told Congress under oath. FNC has already played it several times today. Mueller's ok unless he gets called before Congress, then he'll have to go back on what he said today, so that means Nadler's not going to call him to testify, but, Lindsey Graham can call him in before the senate.

[Guisslapp]

That's what Barr told Congress under oath. FNC has already played it several times today. Mueller's ok unless he gets called before Congress, then he'll have to go back on what he said today, so that means Nadler's not going to call him to testify, but, Lindsey Graham can call him in before the senate.

We already know Barr lied to Congress. I pointed it out when it happened.

[Guisslapp]

Everyone that read the report knew that Barr, at a minimum, misrepresented material facts about it in his testimony.

[FriscoDog]

We already know Barr lied to Congress. I pointed it out when it happened.

Lying to Congress is a crime. I'm okay with holding those accountable who lie to Congress, but lets do it evenly. Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strozk, have all lied to Congress. I think this goes back to Lynch and Holder as well. I wish members of Congress could be charged for lying to the US, because we could start with a new 535 member Congress if we could.

[DONW]

We already know Barr lied to Congress. I pointed it out when it happened.

Mueller lied to Barr and Rosenstein. I think Mueller had a deal with Nadler to keep from having to testify. Mueller knows he can lie as long as he's not under oath. Let's see if the senate calls him in.

[Guisslapp]

Mueller lied to Barr and Rosenstein. I think Mueller had a deal with Nadler to keep from having to testify. Mueller knows he can lie as long as he's not under oath. Let's see if the senate calls him in.

Why would Mueller tell Barr something that is contradicted in his own report? That makes no sense.

[FriscoDog]

Why would Mueller tell Barr something that is contradicted in his own report? That makes no sense.

Supposedly there are recordings of the phone conversation as well as witnesses and scribes.

[Guisslapp]

Supposedly there are recordings of the phone conversation as well as witnesses and scribes.

If y’all would have read the report like I suggested you would have known Barr was blowing smoke in his Congressional testimony. That is why I said he showed his true colors - he is a political spinmeister for Trump. Nothing more. Once the report came out it, you could then judge the context of Barr’s first press conference and you knew he was a hack. You could then even predict that he would not show candor to Congress. But you guys wouldn’t read the report. Instead you wanted to trust Barr because you liked his spin.

If Barr would have played this straight, I seriously doubt we would have a Mueller press conference today.

[FriscoDog]

GO ahead with impeachment then. Senate will never convict. Just as happened with Clinton, and Clinton saw boost in support after. Trump wins bigly in 2020. Barr exposes the true crimes with spying, lying, and obstruction by former administration and former DOJ officials. CNN wants him out so bad along with NBC etc. Former CNN staffers have now come out and said that CNN is totally anti Trump and they flaunt it now. Unbiased reporting it out of the window.