Sure no crime, no conviction. But over 450 former federal prosecutors believe he would be charged if he were not president.
This puts it squarely on the house leadership on whether they impeach or not. I don’t think they will now. But eventually…
So if I read this right…this country is either Ever Trumpers or Never Trumpers. And don’t ever stand against the man…even when the law is at stake? Just amazing.
4 Likes
The Republicans have been running the DoJ for now 27 months. But Hillary has not been indicted during these last 27 months.
1 Like
The whole thing about throwing Hillary in jail was never real. It was a creation of Republican Media to win an election. And at worked.
I’d say it was coordinated with Trump.
1 Like
Really?
It just confirms what I’m saying about culture of corruption within CoJ.
Take Horowitz for example. what was it? 435 pages of bias within CoJ but ruled that their was no bias effecting their discision?
He pulled a Comey.
That’s why I caution every one that’s pinning their hopes on Horowitz. The public must never learn how corrupt they really are.
Doesn’t make me feel uncomfortable at all. I’m 100% confident every signatory is a Never Trumper.
Based. On. What?
1 Like
Has nothing to do with me. How many thousands of former prosecutors didn’t sign the statement. No doubt Trump haters believe there is only one side to this story, but that really isn’t the case at all.
Not really, given that Mueller himself made it clear that Trump being president wasn’t a factor in his decision not to indict. He told Barr that there simply wasn’t enough evidence.
Do you seriously believe that someone with no animosity towards Trump would waste their time on such a meaningless gesture?
I trust they know the law.
And, that Trump broke it.
And she likely won’t be.
Okey dokey.
That is so wrong, and it’s been pointed out to you numerous times. Mueller didn’t indict because of a policy that a sitting president can not be indicted.
It tells you. Nothing…
Just because anti-Trump forum members point something out to me doesn’t make it true.
From the Fox News article.
During a hearing on Capitol Hill last week, Attorney General Bill Barr testified that Mueller "reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion he would have found obstruction.
No he didn’t say he WOULD have found obstruction, he said he did not make the judgement because of the policy that the pres. couldn’t be indicted. He laid out the path for congress to decide.
Read the report.
Once again for your reading pleasure:
During a hearing on Capitol Hill last week, Attorney General Bill Barr testified that Mueller " reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion he would have found obstruction .
The Office of Legal Counsel opinion is what you are referring to. There is nothing explicitly stating a President can’t legally be indicted. It is an “Office of Legal Counsel” opinion.
Mueller stated that wasn’t the reason he didn’t find for obstruction.
I can only surmise that they didn’t feel strongly enough about it to do something like this. Probably because it is not as egregious as ten attempts to obstruct justice in the biggest investigation yet this century.
