Quote (thesnipa @ May 29 2019 12:26pm)
of course. we're FAR too down the line to stop now. we'll hear about this after Trump leaves office, be it 2020 or 2024. same way the public was enamored with the Starr report even a decade after it was done, but this time it will have nasty echos. It was hard to imagine another POTUS shoving cigars in interns, but it wont be hard to imagine someone is using social media to influence elections.
both sides should have dropped it, both sides should have dropped the HRC investigation. both sides should be smart enough to calculate the % chance that the investigation leads to a conviction, and make their decisions on that, instead of the political attention they get out of the investigation with no forethought on how likely a conviction (or even a trial) is. but this is America 2019, mud slinging over actual facts.
Fact, HRC was never going down and never will.
Fact, Trump was never going down and never will.
Fact, even if his/her fingerprints were all over it they'd sacrifice a scapegoat staffer that that's the end of it.
These investigations are absurd. They're anti-due process, as they don't even start with the goal/presumption of seeking truth of potential crimes. and a massive waste of money. o well. i guess taxes have to go somewhere.
Hot take that powerful politicians and people who surround them shouldn't be investigated, even when there is clearly good reason to do so in both cases(Hillary and Trump). Instead of criticizing distracting investigations, why don't we vote for politicians who aren't slimy scumbags?
Quote (fender @ May 29 2019 12:48pm)
he specifically made it a point to address that in his short statement: the only reason, despite the overwhelming evidence he provided, detailing multiple obstruction incidents by trump, is the office of legal counsel guideline against indicting sitting presidents.
the path he suggests couldn't be any more obvious: the ball is now in congress' court to exercise their oversight role over the executive branch.
how much clearer could he be without violating his 'strictly by the book' principles?
Mueller's position was that he was binded by the OLC opinion of not indicting presidents, and thus it would be improper to make a determination on whether the president committed a crime, because the president couldn't defend himself in court. Although he did say that if it was clear Trump did not obstruct justice, he would say so.
Some right-wingers have questioned, then why investigate? The answer from Mueller is it made sense to investigate while memories were fresh and documents could be obtained, as well as to find out whether any people surrounding the president helped him commit crimes. The Department of Justice can only gather the facts as it relates to a president's possible crimes. After that, the Constitutional remedy is impeachment. The Special Counsel regulations don't provide an option for Mueller to formally make an impeachment referral.
----
Good read from my favorite lawyer pundit:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/robert-mueller-sticking-facts/590494/This post was edited by IceMage on May 29 2019 04:18pm