What’s the predicted date for Hell freezing over?
Oh yeah, my sentiments, exactly! The nasty orange booger knows that he needs that second term. I just hope that we can stop the evil piece of shit…
When he “corrected” himself, he still refuted your assertion about his report. It had nothing to do with the evidence, and everything to do with the OLC opinion. Mueller said nothing about whether there was enough or not enough evidence to indict, only that the OLC opinion prevented him from making a decision on indictment. Your assertion that the Mueller report indicated not enough evidence of obstruction to indict is false on the facts. The Mueller report does not say this. You are still incorrect.
He’s not dense. He just can’t hear above all the furious tap-dancing the 'Pubs are doing.
QED
This is right. Mueller has made clear over and over that he simply did not make a final determination about whether the obstruction evidence was sufficient for indictment, and that the reason he did not make that determination is the OLC memo.
I think it’s pretty clear, given the “not exonerated” language, that Mueller personally thinks the President probably committed obstruction of justice (there’s really no other way to explain the contrast to the language about not establishing the crime of conspiracy). But that is not the determination that would be necessary to indict. He would also have to determine the likelihood that courts would agree with his reading of the obstruction statutes and the likelihood that a jury would find the requisite facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are the kinds of determinations he did not ultimately reach because they were moot given the OLC memo.
Legal Q: Let’s suppose that he’s impeached for obstruction of justice, is acquitted by the Senate, and then loses the election in 2020. Could a 2021 Justice Department under a Democratic President’s administration indict and try him for obstruction of justice without triggering double jeopardy?
Multiple sovereigns, innit?
I think Granny Nancy is being sneaky. Doesn’t take much to move for impeachment, AOC can carry that ball with a little help. Investigations ensue. Moderate, sensible Dems and/or chickenshits can say sensible stuff. Like not being in favor of impeachment, but clearly we have to investigate! Gotta keep an open mind!
Remember: the House was totally protecting Il Douche for years, its what they call a target rich environment. Let the nervous Dems show off their sensible maturity, and lets have a good look . Il Douche will lose his shit every time, and the Dems can posture as calm, reasonable, middle of the road. Why, we are doing the President a favor, giving him a chance to prove he’s innocent!
And, if Granny Nancy wants to use her position as a bargaining chip, well, what’s the harm? Barry Obama would most likely disapprove, its not strictly ethical. Bless his heart, he really does mean well!
Let’s ask the Founding Fathers, shall we? Article 1, Section 3: “… the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
TG, IANAL, but seems to me those words “according to law” have enough wiggle room for about a hundred billable hours.
This is a crucial question.
And the likely answer leads me to want to slap the ‘let’s do what’s right regardless of the consequences’ folks right upside the head.
Don’t care that he goes to jail. Only care that he goes away.
Well, that’s the primary consideration, but can’t we have both? “Nobody is above the law” and all that.
Everyone at the hearing kept repeating that phrase. “Nobody is above the law”. And yet, there we were accepting the premise that regardless of crimes, the president of the United States can not be held accountable. How is that consistent?
Leaving aside the details of this specific case, it’s pretty clear that we have set the precedent that the president (regardless of who it is) is, in fact, above the law.
Nobody* is above the law.
- Unless they’re a Republican. They’re above the law. Generally speaking.
QFT. And I don’t understand why Mueller is unable to explain this. Wimp.
There’s an acronym for that.
Dunno. Is the U.S. Senate a separate sovereign from the U.S. DOJ? I recently saw an item where the DOJ declined to prosecute some contempt of Congress citations against the AG and the Commerce Secretary, so it seems not.
That “according to Law” part is, as luci mentions, a fiddly bit. As is the word “convicted.” It doesn’t mention whether the Party is liable and subject to (&c.) when the Party is acquitted. It is also in the main body of the Constitution, rather than the BoR, suggesting that double jeopardy might not have been contemplated when the Article was drafted, but applies because the 5th Amendment was ratified.