The Right Side of the News

Obviously not. Mueller is neither a judge nor a jury so he can't find anyone guilty. What Mueller could do is indict, but the policy of his department states that he can't indict a sitting president. This is a policy that was put in place during the Watergate scandal. Since the justice department can't bring charges against a sitting president, the constitutional solution is impeachment which is the process that is being started now. Yes."The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."
https://www.justice.gov/...dictment-and-criminal-prosecution That's completely false.

Ummm. You do know he asked the President of Ukraine for him to do him a favor.Right after the Ukraine president was asking if they still were going to get some missiles? You do know that is illegal. You do know he was using his personal lawyer to conduct this investigation who was to work with the Ukraine gov.
That means it has nothing to do with US gov business because Rudy G is not a gov official but Trumps personal lawyer. That means it was for Trumps own political gain. You do know his ass is gonna fry for that.
You do know the WH tried to cover it up.No you do not know any of that.I am sure you do not believe the call was ever made and it is all the evil lefties making up stuff to get Trump in trouble.

The Department of Justice has a stated policy that they can't charge a sitting president with a crime. The Department of Justice also has a long standing policy of not making accusations without an indictment. This is why grand jury testimony is put under lock and key because it would be unfair to a person to have these accusations made public them without an indictment. Because of the unique situation of a president commiting a potential crime, Mueller found the middle road. He passed on his findings to Congress which is the body responsible for bringing charges against a sitting president. This also included Mueller's opinion that he could not exonerate the president of wrongdoing. Exactly. In case you forgot, there were hundreds of indictments handed out during this investigation, and many convictions. However, the DoJ can't charge the president with a crime. In this case, the evidence they gathered is passed on to Congress which has the power and discretion to charge the president with crimes. This process is called impeachment.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Hi dwise1 I have had a copy of the Mueller Report since shortly after it was posted.
I listened and recorded ever word of open testimony he gave under oath.Why should I read what Taq says when I can read or listen to what Mueller says?A prosecutor has one job and that is to bring charges against some entity. Person, Corp. etc.A prosecutor has Investigators who investigates and gathers facts and brings their evidence to the prosecutor. The prosecutor then takes that evidence and determines if he has enough evidence to charge a criminal offense. The process is simple. If he has enough evidence to convict he brings charges. If Muller found enough evidence to charge a criminal offense it was his duty to do so regardless of the DOJ guidelines. He was a paid Independent prosecutor by the citizens of the United States and if he could have charged a criminal offense and did not he should be required to refund the money he spent because he was derelict in his duty. But according to his testimony under oath he did not find a prosecutable offense.You say but he couldn't charge the president because of the DOJ guidelines. He could have recommended to the DOJ to prosecute and prosecutable offenses he found. That would have concluded his job and the DOJ could have took his recommendation and followed through on prosecution. But He muddied up the waters with his musings and caused me to lose all respect for him in this case. But I still give him credit for his previous service to the country.God Bless,

Hi Taq That is correct.If he could not find him guilty, he could not find him innocent either.Therefore his statement he could not exonerate (absolve from blame) the President was a stupid statement for a prosecutor to make. There was nothing to keep Mueller from writing a report recommending that the DOJ prosecute a criminal offense even if it was committed the President. If he found evidence that is what he should have done. The problem is he did not find the evidence to convict.God Bless,

It wasn't what Taq says, but rather what the Mueller Report says.Taq quoted from the Mueller Report.That which Taq quoted answers your concerns. That is clearly what I told you with my "Taq quoted the Mueller Report with passages that answer your questions. I recommend that you read those quoted passages.".

The rule against charging a sitting President with a crime does not in any way affect the investigation which had the job of identifying whether there was a crime or not COMMITTED BY TRUMP OR FAVORABLE TO HIS CAMPAIGN. IT FOUND NONE., It's a big fat lie that the rule had anything to do with that. THERE WAS NO CRIME FOUND, no matter how hard they tried during and after the report came out to insinuate there was one against their own findings. You've bought a big fat lie. There would have been no reason whatever to have the investigation at all if they couldn't identify a true crime. They could have and they did not.As for the other indictments and convictions, NONE OF HAD TO DO WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION and are utterly irrelevant to the whole lying effort to pin something on Trump. It failed at what it was supposed to do. There wasn't even a defensible reason to have it in the first place.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If Mueller states that Trump committed a crime then that is charging a sitting president with a crime. Mueller isn't allowed to do that. I don't understand why you are having such a hard time understanding this."On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction;[44] and that neither he nor Rosenstein had reviewed the underlying evidence in the report.[45] In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after they left office.[46]"
Mueller report - WikipediaIf there was no crime found then they would have said that Trump was exonerated. They didn't say that.Oh yes, and this too:"In his report, Mueller did not ultimately charge the president. He made clear during his afternoon testimony that because of the OLC opinion, his team did not even reach a conclusion about whether the president committed a crime. This point was a major clarification of an earlier exchange in which Mueller seemed to signal that he would have potentially charged the president, were it not for the OLC opinion.""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. Mueller declined to state."
OLC policy: The DOJ policy thatMueller keeps citing for not charging the president with a crime - VoxEdited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

From Mueller's own mouth: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.--Robert Mueller
OLC policy: The DOJ policy thatMueller keeps citing for not charging the president with a crime - VoxMueller never stated that Trump clearly did not commit obstruction of justice. If that is what his investigation found he would have said so. He didn't say so. I just showed you what stopped him. It is the OLC rule for federal investigators that they can't charge a sitting president with a crime. Are you blind or something? Here it is again:"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."
https://www.justice.gov/...dictment-and-criminal-prosecutionIt states in no uncertain terms that it would have been unconstitutional for Meuller to charge the president with a crime. That comes straight from the DoJ website. That is the policy that Mueller was following, and it is that same rule that forbade him from making the conclusion that Trump committed any crimes.Also:"In his report, Mueller did not ultimately charge the president. He made clear during his afternoon testimony that because of the OLC opinion, his team did not even reach a conclusion about whether the president committed a crime. This point was a major clarification of an earlier exchange in which Mueller seemed to signal that he would have potentially charged the president, were it not for the OLC opinion."
OLC policy: The DOJ policy thatMueller keeps citing for not charging the president with a crime - Vox"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."--Robert Mueller
https://www.nbcnews.com/...-indicted-when-he-leaves-n1033901Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I have no problem understanding this. I know it's wrong.Consider the Starr Report on Clinton. It concluded that Clinton had actually committed various criminal offenses. Nothing at all of such a clearcut conclusion was made by the Mueller Report.Here's Wikipedia on the Starr Report: Such a clear identification of criminal activity -- lied under oath for instance -- WAS made by the Starr Report. The only reason such a clear statement about any kind of criminal activity was not made by the Mueller Report is that there was no such criminal activity. All the Mueller Report could do was insinuate and try to create an impression of criminality which didn't exist, and that fact alone makes the whole Report a sham.

That was a Congressional investigation, and Congress does have the power to indict a president. They aren't the same thing.Again, these are Mueller's own words:"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."--Rober MuellerThey decided from the very start of the investigation that they would never determine if Trump committed a crime because of DoJ policies and basic fairness. The policy stated that they could not indict the president, and if they couldn't indict they weren't going to make accusations because that is the fair thing to do. They determined that it is Congress' power and their power alone to accuse the president of crimes and indict him.

Mueller was contradicting himself. His whole endeavor was partisan. He had only Hillary supporters working for him. The whole thing was a sham and he didn't really do much of it anyway, the poor man's mind was gone, and the Hillary cronies put it all together.Starr's was Independent Counsel Report. That later became Special Counsel which is what Mueller's was. Starr was recommendeing, he was not representing Congress, but he was able to recommend and so was Mueller, who didn't because he found no criminal activity on trump's part at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I notice that you can't address anything I stated.From the start of the investigation, Mueller had already decided that he would not accuse the president of committing any crimes, even if there was ample evidence of a crime. FROM THE VERY START. He did this because of policy and his professional ethics.Can you admit this or not?

the purpose of the investigation was to look into Russian interference in the 2016 election and any other criminal acts found during this primary investigation. Multiple russians have been indicted as well multiple members of trumps election campaign were successfully charged and prosecuted.

NOT FOR ANYTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIANS OR THE ELECTION. The Russians tried but the Americans did not bite.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.