|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You're not putting enough weight on the fact that Mueller holds the opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Under NO circumstances could he say the president had committed any crime, given that premise.
You get that, right?
Without addressing anything else, you do understand that is a judicial philosophy that Mueller holds as a constitutional fact, right?
I'm not asking whether or not it's a constitutional fact... only whether you understand that Mueller believes it is.
You get that, right?
Spare me the legalese nuances please. It doesn't matter. The guy was the subject of the most relentless investigation of all time, and he came out ahead!
If Trump did something bad, bad enough to endanger his presidency, or challenge his authority as president, then Mueller had every ability to spell it out in his report. If something happened, Mueller could just say that it happened and provide the evidence in support.
You and everyone else talking about this seems to conflate this with the same standards of trial law that you see on TV. Mueller doesn't have to prove a crime. He doesn't have to meet any legal standard. He can just say what happened.
Maybe he can't do anything about it. Maybe he can't file charges on anything. Maybe he can't indict a sitting president. None of that matters. None of that prevents him from reporting on any evidence-based truth about improper activity by the President.
The 25th amendment gives congress the power to impeach the president if they don't like his necktie. There doesn't need to be a crime. His actions don't have to meet any legal standard. If Congress votes the President out, that's it. There's no complicated DOJ rules. If 67 Senators read the MR and decide that Trump is toast, then he's toast. But right now there aren't anywhere close to that, and the ones that are for impeachment have all declared unabated hatred for Trump, so their opinion might be biased.
This was a very simple exercise. We hired Mueller to find out if the president is a traitor. We found out that he's not. Any interpretation beyond that is truly stupid. It's loser talk.
|