Cunt wrote: ↑
Thu May 21, 2020 4:13 am
What rules is that the investigation revealed nothing Trumps enemies could prosecute him with.
You can focus on the fact that he 'wasn't exonerated' but neither were you. Good thing it doesn't matter to anyone not trying to paint a scary story.
Ah, I missed this last night. My apologies, my eyes unfortunately grow weaker over the day.
Cunt, you are entirely and unequivocally wrong, and it's because you haven't read the Mueller Report. What rules is the Office of Legal Council finding that doesn't allow DOJ personnel to indict a sitting President. As Mueller explains (Vol II, Page 1)
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
As for "revealed nothing Trumps enemies could prosecute him with," pages 15 - 158 documents in depth 10 cases of obstruction with analyses of how they align with the obstruction of justice statute. I won't quote that here, but you would be wise to read those chapters before making such a sweeping and erroneous statement.
Far from being the "nothing burger" you call it, the Mueller Report still quite relevant. Even though Trump won't be charged for anything from it while in office, that immunity ends when he leaves. Again Mueller lays it out (Vol II, Page 1) .
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.
This isn't the place to speculate about the election result, but picture Geritol Joe appointing James Comey to the Attorney General job and having an intern leave a copy of the Mueller Report on his desk his first day of work.
Since we're in the Spygate/Obamagate circle jerk thread, let's let Mueller show you how fucking stupid Trump's attempts to investigate and prosecute Obama Administration officials are (Vol II, Page 179).
Under OLC’s opinion that a sitting President is entitled to immunity from indictment, only a successor Administration would be able to prosecute a former President. But that consideration does not suggest that a President would have any basis for fearing abusive investigations or prosecutions after leaving office. There are “obvious political checks” against initiating a baseless investigation or prosecution of a former President. See Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. at 448 (considering political checks in separation-of-powers analysis). And the Attorney General holds “the power to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States Government,” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 694 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 516), which provides a strong institutional safeguard against politicized investigations or prosecutions.
That's the trouble with breaking those unwritten political rules. They exist for a reason. If you break them, the other party might break them against you. Maybe Trump should read the report
But there's also hope for Trump in the report. What did the lawmakers miss? What did the media miss? What did you miss? Here's one!
III. LEGAL DEFENSES TO THE APPLICATION OF OBSTRUCTION-OF-JUSTICE STATUTES TO THE PRESIDENT
Yeah, the last chapter of the report (Vol II, page 159-180) goes though legal defenses available to Trump. Being a Trump fan, you might want to know about those.
The last is just a minor peeve. You keep going on about collusion. Mueller blew the collusion talk out of the water (Vol I, page 2)
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
You couldn't be bothered to read the first two pages of the report? And you want to be taken seriously? Frankly, every time I see you use the word collusion, I shake my head at your ignorance and have a hard time taking anything you say seriously.
I put this at the end to see if you actually read all this. I'll know you didn't if you keep bloviating on about collusion.
There's more, but that's all the time I'm gonna spend holding your hand.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake