Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Texin

(2,658 posts)
30. I saw the same broadcast, and I don't think that's what Mueller stated in the report.
Fri May 3, 2019, 09:32 AM
May 2019

What he actually said is that he is precluded by DOJ policy from being able to indict/charge a "sitting POTUS*" with a crime, therefore he did not believe it was reasonable to make an accusation against said POTUS* when the accused does not have a means to be exonerated legally. He's basically saying "my hands were tied" by DOJ guidelines.

It's as if he was waving a big, flashy flag at the legislators and the DOJ telling them that this policy makes any such Special Prosecutor or Independent Prosecutor irrelevant. Why go to the trouble of undertaking such an investigation when there is no repercussion for the primary target of such an investigation? Investigations can go on indefinitely, but if at the end of the day the only people you can prosecute are the supporting players who only carried out the dirty business for the Big Cheese?

If anything, it's as if he was pointing at this DOJ guideline and saying, "if you don't like the result", change the provisions of the "guideline(s)". Basically, this provision gives any sitting POTUS immunity from prosecution regardless of party. The only recourse for Congress is to bring Articles of Impeachment forward and to remove him/her if they are able to secure a conviction from the Senate.

Rachel just talked about this! leftieNanner May 2019 #1
+1 Irishxs May 2019 #2
Yeah, I just edited my post to say Ilsa May 2019 #3
👏👏👏 Irishxs May 2019 #7
Lol buncha dumb mutherfuckers... Volaris May 2019 #17
I saw the same broadcast, and I don't think that's what Mueller stated in the report. Texin May 2019 #30
Well stated! Vinnie From Indy May 2019 #31
Rachel seems to be the first person to see it. RVN VET71 May 2019 #38
Rachel used Amy K's subtle questioning of barr, to open up a direct empedocles May 2019 #5
Imagine Rachael as a Senator !!!!!!!!!!! pangaia May 2019 #13
In my wettest dreams , she would decide she's made quite enough corporate monies, Volaris May 2019 #19
Olbermann as Press Sec. Can you imagine that??? pangaia May 2019 #24
I've been asking this all day manor321 May 2019 #4
Rachel suggests that barr is now in a 'box.' empedocles May 2019 #10
His competence does come into question; for babylonsister May 2019 #15
Same here...nt 2naSalit May 2019 #20
Thats why i call him LOW BARR onetexan May 2019 #27
Smarty pants! So glad you're Ilsa May 2019 #12
Also Klobuchar was told by Barr watoos May 2019 #6
I saw that! Ilsa May 2019 #9
Pretty shrewd, I must say. calimary May 2019 #14
Senator Klobuchar wrote to mueller today and asked some questions. onecaliberal May 2019 #8
Loved Rachel's characterizations of Amy's questions and follow-up letter. empedocles May 2019 #11
It was great. I love how Jabba the Hutt told the senator to ask mueller, and she did just that. onecaliberal May 2019 #16
Not sure how that helps. Mueller is likely to give the same ambiguous answers he gave in his report. Hoyt May 2019 #18
Mueller found 4 to 6 examples of criminal obstruction of justice. watoos May 2019 #21
Obstruction isn't going to take trump down. We all watched him obstruct, but GOPers don't care. Hoyt May 2019 #25
No, Mueller did not say he found no evidence of collusion/conspiracy. euphorb May 2019 #22
He needed to say, "Lock the MFer up." Not, "I can't find sufficient evidence." Hoyt May 2019 #26
NRA has another meaning patphil May 2019 #33
Yep, and Mueller is probably a member. Hoyt May 2019 #37
Mueller never was and is not a wimp. Period. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #40
+1, who told Mueller the standard was reasonable doubt vs preponderance of evidence?! uponit7771 May 2019 #29
He would have learned it in law school, if not before. euphorb May 2019 #39
Isn't only preponderance of evidence needed to bring criminal charges? tia uponit7771 May 2019 #41
Prosecutors generally don't bring charges unless they have sufficient evidence to convict. euphorb May 2019 #43
He was referring to the primary charge: that of willfully and knowingly conspiring with Russians. Texin May 2019 #35
Mueller plays long game & maybe you forget the 14 criminal referrals Mueller made, only 2 are known. Bernardo de La Paz May 2019 #42
Not hard to always win in court, if you only prosecute when there is no doubt whatsoever. Hoyt May 2019 #44
I sure as hell hope so. mountain grammy May 2019 #23
Rachel and I are so often on teh same page ... here's me, last night at 6pm ... mr_lebowski May 2019 #28
Yeah, I think Barr stepped in it. patphil May 2019 #32
Hah! shanti May 2019 #34
Mueller refers to copious evidence of criminal wrongdoing and he has referred indictments Texin May 2019 #36
Mueller is a Rethuglican. I doubt he tricked Barr into anything. nt MadDAsHell May 2019 #45
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Holy crap! Did Mueller tr...»Reply #30