IG's FISA Probe May Hamper Dems' Impeachment Plans

[JimL]

Do you mean to ask what the evidence of crimes committed are for Congress to file for impeachment?

[JimL]

That's in the prosecutor's job description, kiddo.

Not in the special prosecutors job description concerning a sitting president, kiddo. And if you actually listened to Mueller, he made that exeedingly clear.

He at the very least could have recommended indictment, or short of that, he could have followed the precedent of Ken Starr who clearly spelled out which crimes Bill Clinton had committed without addressing the matter of indictment.

He explained that as well. You really didn't listen to the statement did you. In fairness he could not accuse the President since, according to the constitution and the DOJ guidelines, he could not be indicted and could therefore not defend himself in court. He explained that due to the law, the criminal court was not the place to try the President, that place is Congress.

[Mountain Man]

Not in the special prosecutors job description concerning a sitting president, kiddo. And if you actually listened to Mueller, he made that exeedingly clear.



He explained that as well. You really didn't listen to the statement did you. In fairness he could not accuse the President since, according to the constitution and the DOJ guidelines, he could not be indicted and could therefore not defend himself in court. He explained that due to the law, the criminal court was not the place to try the President, that place is Congress.

I explained that in another thread:

In his statement today, Mueller said, "It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge," which is bull, and he knows it. The procedure, of course, is 1) The special counsel presents a clear case of criminal wrongdoing; 2) Congress uses that case to remove the president from office so that he can be held accountable; 3) The former president is formally indicted and his case is tried in court.

Again, the legal precedent for this is Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton where he unambiguously said which crimes Clinton had committed, and the evidence to support the allegations. Mueller's report, in contrast, is extraordinarily vague and wishy-washy for what's supposed to be a legal brief.

By Mueller declining to clearly spell out evidence for a crime, he is attempting to establish a scenario where a president is removed from office but never charged with a crime, which is shady business.

[rogue06]

Dumbell, Mueller made clear why he didn't indict, or did you miss that part of his statement? It isn't up to him to indict, it was up to him to investigate, to present that to Congress and for Congress to then decide on impeachment.

Which apparently contradicts previous statements on his part.

[Mountain Man]

Which apparently contradicts previous statements on his part.

Mueller is also suggesting that if he had found clear of evidence of conspiracy with the Russian government, he would have similarly refrained from reaching a firm conclusion or clearly describing any crimes, which is absurd. What was the point of the special counsel if it was his intent to leave things so vague?

[JimL]

I explained that in another thread:

In his statement today, Mueller said, "It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge," which is bull, and he knows it.

That is his view, not that there can be no court resolution, but that there being no court procedure at all, Trump would not be able to defend himself. It is up to Congress to take the evidence as gathered in the investigation into consideration and decide for themselves whether to impeach or not. Mueller made that clear to those who have ears to hear.

The procedure, of course, is 1) The special counsel presents a clear case of criminal wrongdoing; 2) Congress uses that case to remove the president from office so that he can be held accountable; 3) The former president is formally indicted and his case is tried in court.

Again, It's the Special Council job to gather and present to Congress the evidence, that's what a Special Council is hired to do, it's for Congress to take that evidence and decide whether or not to impeach.

Again, the legal precedent for this is Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton where he unambiguously said which crimes Clinton had committed, and the evidence to support the allegations. Mueller's report, in contrast, is extraordinarily vague and wishy-washy for what's supposed to be a legal brief.

Mueller goes by the book, the Constitution, the required Department guidelines. You can not indict a sitting President, if you can not indict, you can not charge, it's left to Congress where the Constitution places that resposibility in the process of impeachment

By Mueller declining to clearly spell out evidence for a crime, he is attempting to establish a scenario where a president is removed from office but never charged with a crime, which is shady business.

Oh, he clearly spelled out the evidence, and he left it to Congress to deal with just as he is supposed to do.

[Sparko]

Mueller just decided to egg on congress to keep the nonsense going. I think he knew what he was doing. He dragged the investigation along for 2 years without coming to any definitive decision. Then he gets up before congress, makes a convoluted speech that actually says nothing but leaves enough of a hint that Trump could have maybe somehow done something but there was no evidence. Just enough to keep congress going on their conspiracy drive, then he says he has nothing more to say and he is retiring to private life. It was a big fat middle finger to everyone. He stirred the pot then left the stage. He trolled congress.

[JimL]

Mueller just decided to egg on congress to keep the nonsense going. I think he knew what he was doing. He dragged the investigation along for 2 years without coming to any definitive decision. Then he gets up before congress, makes a convoluted speech that actually says nothing but leaves enough of a hint that Trump could have maybe somehow done something but there was no evidence. Just enough to keep congress going on their conspiracy drive, then he says he has nothing more to say and he is retiring to private life. It was a big fat middle finger to everyone. He stirred the pot then left the stage. He trolled congress.

Really? No evidence, Sparko? Where have you been hiding? Mueller investigated and left the evidence for Congress to make a determination on just as the Constitution requires being that a sitting President can't be indicted.

[lilpixieofterror]

Do you mean to ask what the evidence of crimes committed are for Congress to file for impeachment?

[lilpixieofterror]

Really? No evidence, Sparko? Where have you been hiding? Mueller investigated and left the evidence for Congress to make a determination on just as the Constitution requires being that a sitting President can't be indicted.

And what crimes were listed as being committed?

[Bill the Cat]

Really? No evidence, Sparko? Where have you been hiding? Mueller investigated and left the evidence for Congress to make a determination on just as the Constitution requires being that a sitting President can't be indicted.

And made no provision to criminally charge him after he leaves office.

[JimL]

Actually no, a crime, an illegality, does not have to be committed for impeachment. Impeachment is not a criminal process it's a political process and high crimes and misdemeaners has to do with the Presidents behavior, actions in office, whether illegal or not. But, the evidence for actual criminal behavior, both collusion and obstruction by the president is both obvious and voluminous.

[Sparko]

Really? No evidence, Sparko? Where have you been hiding? Mueller investigated and left the evidence for Congress to make a determination on just as the Constitution requires being that a sitting President can't be indicted.

Mueller: We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.

[Bill the Cat]

Actually no, a crime, an illegality, does not have to be committed for impeachment. Impeachment is not a criminal process it's a political process and high crimes and misdemeaners has to do with the Presidents behavior, actions in office, whether illegal or not.

Absolutely wrong. It only covered actual committed illegal actions of an egregious nature, like bribery, dereliction of duty, and criminal abuses of power.

But, the evidence for actual criminal behavior, both collusion and obstruction by the president is both obvious and voluminous.

No there isn't. Mueller said there was no evidence the Trump campaign colluded. Specifically! And the obstruction "evidence" was insufficient for Mueller to make a determination and he punted to Congress to determine.

[JimL]

Mueller: We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.

That doesn't mean there is no evidence. There was loads of evidence, (did you read the report) (have you been missing in action) it simply means they did not make a determination, because it is not their job to make that determination, it is the job of Congress. What he did say is that if he could have exonerated the president, he would have. He couldn't! That means there was evidence of guilt!