|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Do you understand his position that it is unconstitutional to indict a sitting president?
Is this a thing you understand about Mueller?
First of all, I want to point out that Republicans have been screaming that it's unconstitutional to induct a sitting president for two years now. And in response, every leftist mouthpiece trotted out a legal expert who claimed "au contraire mon frere....you totally can"
Where are those "experts" now?
Anyway, to answer your question. Yes. Yes I understand that about Mueller. I understand his point of view. I'm just not seeing how it's relevant.
Mueller told us that when the president found out about the special counsel appointment, he slumped in his chair and said "I'm fucked". Mueller told us that, because that's what happened, and he has solid evidence convincing him that is what happened. But what if something else happened? What if instead of saying "Im fucked" Trump decided to put on a mumu and a pink wig, arm himself with a fly swatter, and threw watermelons off the roof of the whitehouse while screaming warnings about alien lizard people infiltrating the FBI. If that happened, Mueller would have told you. And then after he told you (us), then Congress could say that the president has lost his marbles, and invoke the 25th Amendment.
Similarly, Mueller could have told us that Trump had an explicit quid pro quo arrangement with the Kremlin that gave him an unfair advantage in the election. Yes, Mueller could have told us that. Because another republican talking point that's been ignored for the last two years is this: THAT'S NOT A CRIME!! So Mueller would have no restriction governing his discussion of that type of event.
No one asked Mueller to file charges. No one is asking Mueller to indict. That would be superbly dumb given the known policy that the DOJ won't indict a sitting president. All we asked Mueller to do was to tell us what happened. And he has.
|
Reply With Quote