To impeach, or not to impeach: there may be an alternative

Keep reading what OLC guidelines.....

Tell me in those guidelines where it prohibits Mueller from making a recommendation which page I believe there’s 39 pages?

Prosecuting and recommending prosecution to congress are different things. Nothing was stopping Mueller from taking a more firm stance yet he didn’t.

I agree with you about Muellers stance of not taking a stance is bad. I personally think it raises more questions than answers for all Americans.

 

Yeah the law that states that a Special can't recommend prosecution.

What does an op-ed about the Barr Summary have to do with anything? Why do you all go to liberal blogs for your views, instead of actually reading the laws, the report, and the summary?

 

Coming from someone who, based on your posts, is informed by Don's Twitter feed, that's hilarious.

 

Congrats! You get the price for the most ridiculous statement I've seen today. And consider the fact that the runner up was some guy saying that Mueller should have shut down the investigation before he started investigating.

 

So.. did I "flip out", or did I let the article talk? Make up your mind!

I don't think you're even trying anymore.

 

...
Keep reading the report! Not the...

Look... forget ... don't bother.

 

Look. Just because I happened to have the document open in the corresponding page, I'll educate you .... this time only. Don't expect me to hand-hold you anymore. The most relevant parts to explain why Mueller could give an opinion only if he established that the President was innocent, but not in any other case, are in bold. But the rest is important because of the context. If you are going to discuss this, you need to know the basics. Again: look for real news for a couple of days....

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (201 (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought , affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator . 5

[From footnote 5] See United States v.Briggs,514 F.2d 794,802 (5th Cir. 1975) ("The courts have struck down with strong language efforts by grand juries to accuse persons of crime while affording them no forum in which to vindicate themselves."); see also Justice Manual § 9-11.130.

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report , could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term , OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy, " and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern." 6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him
​

Now... happy studying. Remember: no wingnut media for... at least, I would say... a week

 

Did you need me to link you to the .gov site with OLC guidelines?

Is that the holdup in you citing where it prohibits Mueller from making a recommendation you just can’t find the website?

You haven’t answered any basic questions and when cornered you link a blog to talk for you.... I’ll quote you when I linked Glen Greenwald “read forum rules!”

 

You can’t follow along huh? You flipped out on me when I linked Glen Greenwald then you did the exact same thing!!!!!

 

That will not happen. His lawyers wouldn't allow it because they know he is a pathological liar, and Trump can't be forced to testify.

Warren and the other Democratic Presidential candidates who are pitching impeachment are aiding Trump's re-election prospects. Fox News spends a lot of time on those candidates. Trump and those close to him wants him to be impeached.

 

Ok let’s say we go with what you’ve written.

It begs the question when did they decide on that line of reasoning?

Was it at the beginning they knew they would never come to recommendation of charges?

Or was it later in the investigation when they knew they didn’t have solid evidence?

Why go through it the trouble of investigating a person you felt you legally couldn’t even recommend charges for?

Their verbiage “we determined” and “fairness concerns counseled against” makes it clear that there was no law stopping them but that they chose to do it that way.

 

Does the phrase “we determined” make you think that there was a law prohibiting recommending charges?

 

I know facts are outrageous!!!!

There were no indictments so Trump is cleared from a legal sense not political.

Now if you want to get into the reasons why that’s another argument

If Muellers interpretation of OLC and DOJ guidelines was that a sitting president couldn’t be indicted from the very beginning why exactly investigate a crime you can’t solve? Why not hand that part back to congress because now congress because now we’ve wasted 2 years and congress has to go back through and investigate the matter anyhow.

 

No let's take this one you are calling for.

Give me your wording for the Article of Impeachment.

 

Sure he can and the grand jury can vote a bill of indictment. He can take the indictment to the Congress and Congress can impeach and remove and then the now former President can be prosecuted or the Special must wait, as with Clinton, until the President leaves office. Being President does NOT give him immunity from a criminal indictment and prosecution it only may delay it.

 

Dangit I rarely agree with you but in this instance I do. I really think democrats would’ve been smarter if they’d have not said impeachment imo. That doesn’t mean no hearings just don’t say the word in public. I’m a Republican leaning independent but if I was to put myself in their shoes they should’ve never said impeachment but do things like hearings that hint at impeachment to hangover Trumps head until after 2020. The open threats of impeachment will energize Trumps base imo which is why Rush and company talk about it constantly...... energizing the base

 

Here you go

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-an-alternative.554516/page-8#post-1070488037

 

What are you talking about? You're linked to .... what?

 

You already forgot you crying about forum rules??? I guess they only applied to me and not you

 

Sure he can. It's not a legal process. It's political.

But here is the bottom line. And I repeat it: if they don't take away the talking point "Then why didn't you impeach me?", then Democrats forfeit the right to refer to any of Trump's crimes during the campaign.

How can you know that? I'm sure Fox does. Great for ratings. But not Trump. He loses no matter what happens. Removed or not removed. Even if he somehow gets away with not testifying, all the witnesses mentioned in the Mueller report will not. And Republicans in Congress will not get away from being on record with protecting him.... forever. At this point, I'm not even sure how many would take that road. At least among those who still have more than 4 years left in their terms.

 

Ya that’s not OLC guidelines

Sigh.........

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion...enability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

Where in there does it say he can’t recommend explicitly? You quote says “we determined” if there was a law explicitly saying they couldn’t do you think it would be up to their determination?

So if the only reason Trump wasn’t indicted was because of OLC DOJ guidelines why wasn’t Kushner or Don Jr indicted?

Are they also sitting presidents?

 

Two reasons. Congress can use the information for it's impeachment if it chooses.
Trump can be prosecuted when he leaves office in 2021.

 

Exactly. They didn't. Not thoroughly. That is also on the report. Can't remember the page. I think it's towards the end, but I'm not sure. A part where Mueller seems to "wonder" what the investigation would have been like if not for the OLC directive. Your chance to research a bit.

If you can't find it, I might look it up one of these days. Not tonight, though.

I told you! If you were familiar with what is going on you would have known that asking for a "law" is ridiculous. There are many things that restrain him. Some are laws.... but that's secondary.

As a matter of fact, now that I remember, some are even mentioned on the quote I sent. If you read carefully.

 

Can what? Be forced to testify? No, he can't be forced to testify.

Well, if it's great for the Trump Network, it is not great for us. I repeat, Trump wants to be impeached. Someone told him about the Clinton impeachment and what happened to the GOP because of the failure. Can you say "disaster?"