As I recall......It was not so much what he "wanted"...........but that there was enough evidence that Trump could have been indicted........but because he w as POTUS...........and the understanding was that anyone in active POTUS position could not be indicted. It seems to be an"understanding"........as opposed to a "legal" position.
Not only mine. There was a public announcement from a bunch of professional legal prosecutors, that there was sufficient evidence in the Mueller Report for them to file charges against any person other than the President, for obstruction. Mueller made clear his job was to study the possibility of collusion, not obstruction, but when his investigation suffered from obstruction, he added that evidence to his report, even though it wasn't his area of authority or something he was permitted to follow up with.
Probably all Trump hating people who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Why WOULDN'T they add their name to that list even if they didn't believe there was sufficient evidence? In the largely 'liberal', left wing world of law, people could risk getting fired if it was discovered that they hadn't added their name to that list! They could be seen to be supporting Trump! You expect people to take that list seriously? Come on! And you still haven't said how if your opinion is correct, why Mueller said that he was NOT saying, that but for the OLC opinion he would've found obstruction. How was he not permitted to follow up obstruction of justice?
Then why do you suppose that Mueller told Barr that he was NOT saying, that but for the OLC opinion he would've found obstruction?
It's my opinion Mueller felt constrained by DOJ policy that no sitting President could be charged with a crime. I also feel the second part of his report was offered as an inducement for Congress to consider impeachment. He mentioned in his speech, that the only avenue open to America to address Trump's illicit behavior, was thru Congress & impeachment.
Applying that standard to Dirty Donnie and the Russians, DD should now be in jail......for multiple reasons, both pre-election and post Applying that standard to Dirty Donnie and the Ukraine, DD should now be in jail.........
The glaringly obvious difference is that Comey found evidence that Clinton broke the law. We have no such evidence with regards to Trump. What does the left claim to have? A phone call transcript? Your childish name-calling demonstrates that your criticisms of your President are based on emotion and not fact...
Childish in comparison to DD's tweets ? I think not. As for evidence, yes, a phone call transcript is good enough. Except, that is, for blind,deaf and dumb trumpettes. Remember, you guys are the ones arguing, in court, that the president can't be prosecuted for shooting someone in the face at high noon so long as he is in office.
No, childish with regards to how you conduct yourself as an adult. You seem challenged by that... You also seem challenged by honesty, as no one (other than you) has ever said something that stupid...
Child, other than me, your leader's lawyers were arguing that in court. BTW, you boy lost this one in court.
Trouble with English ? "You're unable to not act like an adult." = You are not able to not act like an adult. = You are able to act like an adult. Thank you !
Excellent, and you fell for it. Pegged you as little more than a grammar nazi. I bet you run spell check on every post you read, too, don't you? Here, do the math on this: You act like a child. Hence, you shall be treated as a child. Better?
That he was hamstrung (or words to the effect of?) That would've required him to basically say that if it wasn't for the OLC opinion, he would have indicted Trump!
That's open to interpretation. I feel Mueller felt constrained by the DOJ policy. Several things he said during his Congressional testimony made me feel that way. I also felt he was anxious for Congress to take up their own inquires to follow up where he left off.
So then why do you think he told Barr that he was NOT saying, that but for the OLC opinion he would've found obstruction?
I'm confused by your question. Also, who said Mueller ever said that? Barr? Since Barr lied about the summary of the Mueller Report BEFORE it was officially released, who can trust Barr? There's so much corruption in the Trump administration, no one connected to Trump can be trusted. That's not only sad, it's the worst I've ever seen trust slide downward regarding government, in my lifetime, & that's not a good development. In my view, Republicans caused that slide.
What I'm asking is, if Mueller would have prosecuted Trump in the absence of the OLC opinion, then why would he have told Barr that he was NOT saying, that but for the OLC opinion he would've found obstruction? Yes, Barr under oath in public testimony. If he testified that Mueller said something that he didn't actually say, do you actually think that Mueller would have let him get away with it? What the hell did Barr lie about?
and to me as well. He maintained his professionalism..........regardless of how badly Trump ..Lacking any professionalism-- bad mouthed him .......... How he maintained his composure and dignity in that toxic environment is rather perplexing. But he did. No drama queen stuff from him.
