" “Look, Sessions gets the job. Right after he gets the job, he recuses himself,” Trump told The New York Times in July 2017. “So Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself. I then have—which, frankly, I think is very unfair to the president. How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I can’t, you know, I’m not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair, and that’s a mild word, to the president.” As for Rosenstein he did not wait until he was AG to declare his independence, Rosenstein personally approved the FBI raid on President Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen, when he was still the assistant to Sessions ( recused from this decision) in which the FBI seized emails, tax documents and records, some of them related to Cohen's payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels. Here is a link to what Trump said about that act.https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/fbi-raids-the-office-of-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-nyt.html He refers to that act as as disgraceful and part of the witch-hunt etc.
Okay, so has there been anything which commentators have said that Barr should've done but didn't? Has Barr even been tested?
I think we can safely assume from the headlines and the multiple problems from the Mueller report and testimony aftermath, to the emoluments clause and taxes and this newest set of outrages for which he may be impeached and maybe even a few more I can't think off offhand, that his time has not been controversy- free with respect to rocks and hard place choices with this particular president. I going to have you do the legwork on this one. I did the other two. You see if you can find some test of independence that Barr passes, one where he separates himself from what his boss wanted and incurred that wrath. You picked the 8 month standard and what you expected me to produce and I did, now you prove that this guy is not owned by Trump. Or you might concede that the total uniformity between what Barr says and does in his professional capacity and that title of his , and what is in Trump's interest for him to say or do in his tenure, seem - oddly parallel every friggin time.
Could be as well...since Mueller released a letter he'd sent to Barr disagreeing with Barr's earlier "summary announcement" prior to releasing the report.
OK...but the "due process" conflict was that if Mueller said there was sufficient evidence for an indictment and could not indict because of the DoJ policy, it would leave a "cloud" over the Presidency, because Trump would be deprived of his right to a "speedy trial." Maybe, we're sayin g the same thing?
Correct but at the same time there were indications that a crime may have been committed so he was unable to give Trump an exoneration. He said in the report and during testimony that if he had found evidence to clear the president he would have done so. Just trying to make that clear.
1. Yes. Comey said as much in the Congressional hearings he attended. 2. Mueller said his investigation was hamstrung from the very beginning by that DOJ policy of never charging a sitting President with a crime. He said he never pursued a criminal investigation because he would be forbidden from filing charges against Trump anyway. Mueller didn't demonstrate Trump's innocence. He found a lot of evidence that Trump was involved in illegal actions, & incarcerated Trump associates who weren't protected by the DOJ policy. Mueller himself seemed anxious to have Congress follow up with the evidence he found implicating Trump, because, according to him in his testimony to Congress, only Congress had the Constitutional power to stop Trump. My view of the Mueller Report is that he found considerable evidence implicating Trump personally, but never felt he had the power to do anything about it.
There are many opinions there but only one attempt at fact, and you have that wrong. There is an OLC opinion but not a policy.
When there is "insufficient evidence to rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt" the verdict is "Not Guilty" or "Innocent". Judges don't leave a case open because the accused may be guilty of something which may be investigated later by someone else. That is coming quite close to double jeopardy, and flies in the face of fairness, or what can be thought of as 'American justice'. They had an unlimited budget, dozens of Democrats lawyers,50 FBI agents, 500 witnesses, and found nothing. Nada. Democrats have been 'investigating' this President since well before he was even sworn in and continue, under the leadership of Maxine Waters, to 'Impeach 45'.. Leftists have no shame.
Then why ever begin this overlong and expensive charade if they knew they could never do anything about it anyway? It was a Hoax. A Witch Hunt. And there is greater evidence of that than anything else.
Mueller wasn't a judge. He clearly thought the investigation into the obstruction charges wasn't complete. And, it's not "double jeopardy" unless there has been a verdict. You're grasping at straws. Anyhow, it now appears Trump will be removed from office on impeachment, then he can be indicted.
Perhaps, but it's being followed rigidly as if it were a policy. Mueller felt compelled to adhere to it, & it changed not only the outcome, but the general thrust of his investigation.
The very fact that Mueller sent between 4 & 8 close associates to Trump to jail or prison, justifies that investigation, regardless of how it failed to deal with Trump.
Yes, I know but the term was used because his ultimate role, and that of his team, was to judge whether any crime had taken place. If the investigation wasn't complete why was it ended? After all that time and expense there is no reason why a decision could not have been made. Unless it was all political theater. I also understand about 'double jeopardy' saying it was 'quite close'. Perhaps you just didn't understand the point. Can you explain why the President will be impeached or indicted?
How many were related to Russia and why wasn't a thorough investigate done? If the truth about what happened regarding interference in the last election, and the buildup to it, why weren't both parties investigated? And shouldn't what happened with the Ukrainians also be totally investigated, going all the way back to 2008? The fact is that Leftists don't want any such investigations.
I'd say "abuse of power" regarding impeachment. The President withheld Congressional appropriated funding from Ukraine for personal political purposes. Plus, other possible charges related to campaign finance violations, the emoluments clause, etc. On indictments...stay tuned. The DC Appellate Court hears arguments tomorrow on issues relating to the DoJ policy on non-indictment of sitting presidents. If they uphold the lower court decision and aren't reversed by the Supreme Court on further appeal, that policy could be held to be unconstitutional.
You want to have him impeached for 'abuse of power' with the Ukraine but, as you must know, the left were calling for impeachment years before that call was even made. And withholding aid was the absolutely right thing to do until the President was satisfied that there was no corruption. And there are also other 'possible' charges??. That's Witch Hunt thinking and not good for the country. This star chamber approach should be condemned by everyone. Established precedents are being ignored while new and dangerous precedents are being established. How is any of this good for America?
