The Right Side of the News

Channeling Saturday Night Live with the original Not Quite Ready for Prime Time Actors (the only ones I have ever acknowledged): Faith, you shameless hussy!Here yet again!!, is what Robert Mueller reported:

quote:

---

We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or declin e 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. 2 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. 4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given tho se considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in

---

If the policy is that you cannot charge a sitting President, then that sitting President cannot possibly have any charges against him. Duh????Please wake up one of these mornings.

Here's the Washington Post's report on Barr's conversation with Mueller after Mueller's complaint about Barr's four-page presentation of the main points in the Mueller report: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If they couldn't charge him with something impeachable then there was no reason for the report at all. And there was not, but that's a trumped up reason which Mueller himself had denied, taken back, denied etc. MAY THE TRUTH COME OUT!Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Even if the Mueller report had found nothing, there would still be a valid purpose for it. And it did find strong evidence of Obstruction of Justice as everyone knows. Even Trump knows it, which is why he keeps trying to trash Mueller. (And you have to know about. That vile habit of Trump’s is one of the reasons you love him so much)

There was no obstruction of justice and if there had been the report had an obligation to say so clearly, but all there is in the report is innuendo about things Trump said which do not amount to obstruction of justice. Starr's report on Clinton clearly said he had in fact obstructed justice. That is what the Mueller report had an obligation to do if there was obstruction of justice. Instead it resorted to vague insinuations which should not have been in such a report at all.

dwise1This is totally out of order, please delete it.

quote:

---

There was no obstruction of justice and if there had been the report had an obligation to say so clearly, but all there is in the report is innuendo about things Trump said which do not amount to obstruction of justice.

---

No, there was an obligation to lay out the evidence for the House to decide. And that is what Mueller did. The House declined to impeach then, but that decision was waffected by political considerations. The Senate would almost certainly refuse to convict because partisan politics has taken over from principles.

quote:

---

Starr's report on Clinton clearly said he had in fact obstructed justice.

---

Yeah. Let’s talk about that. Starr failed to come up with anything in the Whitewater investigation. Instead of closing down the investigation he started on the unrelated Troopergate. That also turned up nothing, but Clinton got caught lying about Monica Lewinsky. Is that really the comparison you want to make ?

quote:

---

Instead it resorted to vague insinuations which should not have been in such a report at all.

---

It was not Mueller’s job to cover up for Trump, which is what you mean.

This is one of those pernicious lying bits of fake news the Left makes up out of nothing but their own wishfulness. Trump has no reason to be worried about all of the Left's shenanigans, they are all lies. The only reason he would want to stay in office is to serve the nation, which he sincerely loves, and his supporters. The Democrats have done nothing but try to impede his sincere efforts to fulfill his promises to us, so he wants more time to try to fulfill them in spite of the utterly unjust attacks on him..

The only point I was making is that Starr made direct charges against Clinton and the Mueller report was a masterpiece of evasion and innuendo obviously because they had found nothing at all against Trump.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And the lying goes on. Trump’s desperate attempts to obstruct investigation are proof that he does have a real fear of prosecution.He is safe from prosecution as President. But he won’t be when he leaves office.And you can explain how Trump is working to fulfil his promise to reveal his tax returns. Or his promise to eliminate the deficit.Edited by PaulK, : Fixed typo

quote:

---

The only point I was making is that Starr made direct charges against Clinton and the Mueller report was a masterpiece of evasion and innuendo obviously because they had found nothing at all against Trump.

---

Yes, I understand that you wouldn’t want the truth to come out. But the fact that Mueller presented evidence rather than laying charges is simply a result of the changes since Starr’s abuses.Your false innuendo is just a part of your campaign to bury the truth.

And that may being lenient.The "little red dot" message:

Trump made NO "desperate attempts to obstruct investigation" in fact he cooperated to an extreme extent,. He called it what it was, a witch hunt nevertheless, but obstruct it, no he did not.He has no obligation to release his tax returns, that's just another part of the witch hunt. There would be nothing wrong in them but he knows the Democrats would carry on and on and on about some little ambiguity or other to make it seem as if there was. That's all they've done since the beginning. I hope these miserable accusers get their rightful comeuppance.

I nominate you for a suspension due to your ad hominems.

Even if Donald was getting wonderful results as president, his basic personality is still "epic jerk" (to use non-profane terminology).I think that the "incompetent boob" charge, in a sane world, should be enough to get him impeached and removed from office.And sheesh, Faith - If DT proclaimed water to not be wet, you'd be saying that "water is wet" is FAKE NEWS.Or something like that.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Call it a typo fix.