"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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgement." - Robert Mueller
Can a sitting president be indicted by the DOJ?
- Thread starter doggystyle99
- Start date
Yes, sound serious... until you consider the context. Not of the statement itself, but of the situation. And what is that? Oh yeah,the Special Prosecutor investigations paralyse Administrations.
Every single time someone looks under a Trump rock they find corruption and fraud.
Trump U
Trump Foundation
Inaugural committee
Taxes
Hiring illegal workers
Every single time.
That's why he said he was fucked
Don McGhan, Jeff Sessions, Corey Lewandoski and everyone else Trump ordered to obstruct justice knew the Presidents orders were NOT lawful and thus did not act on Trump's attempts to obstruct justice times 10.
Everyone, all including Trump knew, he was attempting to obstruct justice.
Really? Let's take Jeff Sessions. The President asked him to unrecuse himself. Explain how is that obstruction of justice?
Answer:
Sessions recused himself from the Russia Investigation because he know he had contact with the Russian during the 2016 campaign. Which came out to be true and was reported.
How is asking the Attorney General to unrecuse himself from the Russian Investigation not an obstruction of justice when he had contacts with Russians during the election. The exact thing they are investigating.
Clearly you would be fine for all criminal investigations being undertaken by one of the people involved in the criminal act. :crazy:
I get that you are oblivious to facts but seriously you are on another level :crazy:
He had contacts with the Russian ambassador as a function of being a Senator.
Mueller confirmed that in the report.
Exactly. Meeting the Russian ambassador by a United States Senator sitting on a powerful comity is par for the course and in no way does it implicate that Senator into any unkosher relationship. AG Session simply( probably) believed, influenced by the false noise in the media, that there was at least some truth to the collusion narrative and wanted to stay clear. And, despite of Trump's reassurances, he still refused to unrecuse himself. What was the President suppose to do in the face of lack of trust from his AG? And this looks even worse now from the perspective of the Mueller's Report.
Alex Ovechkin shook Putin's hand(many times). He's been to the White House and met Trump. Collusion!!!!!Yup, nothing happened.
Nothing at all.
And lied about every single one of his dealings with Russians and knowledge of meetings with Russian from the Trump administration. Hence why he had to recuse himself.
You nor I have seen what is in the Mueller report, you've been given a redacted report as well as a speech from General Coverup Barr.
What is your position on this thread, can a sitting president be indicted by the DOJ?
Honestly I just don't know. I'm certainly not going to claim any expertise in the US Constitution, as it applies to the Office of the President.
It will end up in the hands of the SCOTUS if it comes to that. But honestly I don't think it will.
I don't believe he committed any crimes on the campaign trail or while in office that would Warrent it.
And again, I'm no expert but everything I've seen and read says anything before will have to wait until he is out.
That's seems to be the general consensus anyway.
It's clear Mueller's findings were based on and adhered to the DOJ guidelines that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
I for one believe no president should be above the law and the DOJ should be able to indict a president. What do you believe?
I believe a President's conduct should be such that the issue would never arise. Which is why 'high crimes and misdemeanours' and impeachment were conceived.
If the authorities who indict common criminals have similar evidence against a President, the republic is in dire straits indeed. The real issue is not whether Mueller determined the current President could or could not be indicted, nor whether he determined that he should be or should not. The really significant and sad finding was that he explicitly stated that the evidence was such that the President could not be exonerated.
A standard adequate for someone brought before the law, but unworthy of any President.
Now we know how Mueller himself has serious concerns about the manner in which Barr has concluded that there is no obstruction etc. This case as we stated all along is still a smoking gun. Barr has to go before Congress as well. The President has not been exonerated, as attempts to obstruct Justice and not co-operating with the investigation are grounds for obstruction of Justice. The banana Republicans will continue to deflect attention to the Clinton emails, in collusion with Barr !!
ROFLMAO!!! Read Mueller's letter and what he objects to. But! Keep digging. Who knows, you may find some collusion.
