Most conservatives don't understand purpose of journalism, says founder of website on media bias

[US&THEM]

Donald owned the Emmy's in TV his days. Trust fund baby made good? Have you seen that hottie mother of his youngest son he has on his arm at public events? Grrooooowll!

Makes you forget what horrific businessman he was and still is.

 

[Athanasius68]

According to the DOJ it was. Both Barr and Mueller said that Mueller was prohibited from concluding that the president committed a crime. Whether that was actually true in your eyes is irrelevant if they believed it was true.

Barr said flat out Mueller could have recommended that Trump be be prosecuted for alleged crimes.

 

[Athanasius68]

Mueller said otherwise. And you already know where I'm getting it from. I provided you several links. Care to comment on them?

Mueller said he couldn't because of the DOJ prohibition against charging an incumbent president.
Barr basically said he could change the DOJ rule-- essentially the prohibition was not Muellers problem. It was Barr's.

 

[Athanasius68]

He dropped the interview demand because he didn’t want to anger trump. That’s a fact.

There was no reason to interview Trump.

 

[US&THEM]

I agree it's a bit tortured, but from a policy point of view, I agree with it 100%

I do not think anyone could predict what a complete ass Trump would be in the WH. I had hoped he would look out for the nation instead of himself.

 

[Rawley]

I do not think anyone could predict what a complete ass Trump would be in the WH. I had hoped he would look out for the nation instead of himself.

You seem rather hung up on his personality. I found Obama to be the most narcissistic self absorbed President in my lifetime. You should get over it.

I didn't think anyone could predict what an outstanding job Trump did on the economy, Foreign relations, foreign trade, immigration.

 

[dixon01767]

Mueller's report did to the extent possible with Donald Trump's obstruction. But he was legally and constitutionally barred from concluding that Donald Trump committed a crime.

No he wasn't, He could conclude anything he wanted to. It was a report. Not an indictment. AND it is neither legality OR constitutionality that prevented the justice department from INDICTING a President and nothing prevents a special counsel from concluding that a president committed a crime in a special counsel report. That was the BS narrative created to distract from the fact that Muellar didn't find any crimes by the president.
Just the first thing I run across on point in a google search. Not the Constitution or the law. It is a justice department policy. Something they made up themselves.

"The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, indicating that criminal charges against Trump would be unlikely, according to legal experts....
WHAT IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY?
In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.

“The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.

The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. "
Can a sitting U.S. president face criminal charges? | Reuters

Investigating and reporting on crimes to congress is the very purpose of special counsels. Ken Starr had a long list of indictments and prosecutions of crimes by others, and a report to Congress without any prosecution of the crimes committed by Clinton, including obstruction of justice.

 

[lwf]

Barr said flat out Mueller could have recommended that Trump be be prosecuted for alleged crimes.

After the fact and in front of the cameras. Mueller objected to this characterization and told a very different story.

 

[lwf]

Mueller said he couldn't because of the DOJ prohibition against charging an incumbent president.
Barr basically said he could change the DOJ rule-- essentially the prohibition was not Muellers problem. It was Barr's.

But Bar was the one ultimately in charge of the investigation. Mueller objected to Barr's characterization of the strictures he was bound by. Barr was talking out of both sides of his mouth. Telling Mueller one thing in private, and telling the public the exact opposite. He did this in order to try to mischaracterize the findings of the investigation that President Trump committed crimes in office with which he can be charged for after he is no longer the sitting president. Barr gave the Republican Party enough doubt to deny the findings of the investigation, while at the same time dishonestly implying that the investigation cleared Trump of wrongdoing. And he was impeached for these crimes, and Republican Senators shrugged their shoulders at his criminal behavior and simply declined to remove him from office. This fooled no one but Trump's base.

 

[lwf]

No he wasn't, He could conclude anything he wanted to. It was a report. Not an indictment. AND it is neither legality OR constitutionality that prevented the justice department from INDICTING a President and nothing prevents a special counsel from concluding that a president committed a crime in a special counsel report. That was the BS narrative created to distract from the fact that Muellar didn't find any crimes by the president.
Just the first thing I run across on point in a google search. Not the Constitution or the law. It is a justice department policy. Something they made up themselves.

"The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, indicating that criminal charges against Trump would be unlikely, according to legal experts....
WHAT IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY?
In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.

“The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.

The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. "
Can a sitting U.S. president face criminal charges? | Reuters

Investigating and reporting on crimes to congress is the very purpose of special counsels. Ken Starr had a long list of indictments and prosecutions of crimes by others, and a report to Congress without any prosecution of the crimes committed by Clinton, including obstruction of justice.

That is how it should have worked. You are mistaken if you think that was framework under which Mueller was operating. Barr decided to interpret any criminal findings contained in the investigation as an indictment unto themselves. At least, this according to Robert Mueller:


Mueller: “We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted.”


Mueller: "Charging the president with a crime was... not an option we could consider. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge."


Ted Lieu: "I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC (the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?"

Robert Mueller: "That is correct."


Mueller: "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

Ken Buck: "Was there sufficient evidence to convict President Trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice?"

Mueller: "We did not make that calculation."


Buck: "Could you charge a president with a crime after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

Buck: "You believe that he committed — you could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."


Mueller: "If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."

 

[dixon01767]

That is how it should have worked. You are mistaken …..

Youre chasing a strawman. Im not suggesting Mueller could or should of "charged" Trump with a crime. He could of simply included in his report to Congress that the President had committed a crime. They all know that is the job of Congress when it comes to the President. Muellars job was to write his report.

 

[Athanasius68]

But Bar was the one ultimately in charge of the investigation. Mueller objected to Barr's characterization of the strictures he was bound by. Barr was talking out of both sides of his mouth. Telling Mueller one thing in private, and telling the public the exact opposite. He did this in order to try to mischaracterize the findings of the investigation that President Trump committed crimes in office with which he can be charged for after he is no longer the sitting president. Barr gave the Republican Party enough doubt to deny the findings of the investigation, while at the same time dishonestly implying that the investigation cleared Trump of wrongdoing. And he was impeached for these crimes, and Republican Senators shrugged their shoulders at his criminal behavior and simply declined to remove him from office. This fooled no one but Trump's base.

Barr accurately related what Mueller said.
The objection here is simply that the political battle against Mr. Trump took a serious hit was was determined he and/or his campaign did not conspire with Russia. This conclusion has been reinforced by the House and Senate investigations.

 

[Athanasius68]

After the fact and in front of the cameras. Mueller objected to this characterization and told a very different story.

No he didnt. He agreed with Barr's summary. His objection is that he said he concluded he made no conclusion based upon the OLC ruling.
Barr said that OLC opinion was not his concern.

 

[j brown's body]

You seem rather hung up on his personality. I found Obama to be the most narcissistic self absorbed President in my lifetime. You should get over it.

I didn't think anyone could predict what an outstanding job Trump did on the economy, Foreign relations, foreign trade, immigration.

"Narcissistic self absorbed" = Uppity Kenyan who doesn't know his place.

In any case, pretty hard to not see that a man who can't admit that he lost an election, even though he got creamed, and thus, has to be placate by everyone in his world, is pretty heavily into narcissism.

 

[Rawley]

"Narcissistic self absorbed" = Uppity Kenyan who doesn't know his place.

In any case, pretty hard to not see that a man who can't admit that he lost an election, even though he got creamed, and thus, has to be placate by everyone in his world, is pretty heavily into narcissism.

Didn't peg you as a birther. Oh well

 

[lwf]

Youre chasing a strawman. Im not suggesting Mueller could or should of "charged" Trump with a crime. He could of simply included in his report to Congress that the President had committed a crime. They all know that is the job of Congress when it comes to the President. Muellars job was to write his report.

And he was barred by the DOJ from including in his report that the president committed a crime. He said so. He was legally incapable of stating in his report that the president committed a crime.

 

[Athanasius68]

And he was barred by the DOJ from including in his report that the president committed a crime. He said so. He was legally incapable of stating in his report that the president committed a crime.

That is false. He could have if he wanted to. Barr himself said this.

 

[lwf]

That is false. He could have if he wanted to. Barr himself said this.

Mueller said he couldn't.

 

[Athanasius68]

Mueller said he couldn't.

Mueller was wrong.
Mueller worked for Barr.
The OLC opinion was a policy decision which can be revoked by an AG.
Who is Barr.

 

[lwf]

Mueller was wrong.
Mueller worked for Barr.
The OLC opinion was a policy decision which can be revoked by an AG.
Who is Barr.

I think Mueller knew what strictures he was under better than you do. He said under oath that he was not legally capable of concluding that the president committed a crime. If he was mistaken in this, then perhaps Barr should have communicated this to him before he concluded the investigation?