Sorry folks, but it still isn't clear that Robert Mueller would have indicted Trump if he could have

[mystery-ak]

Sorry folks, but it still isn't clear that Robert Mueller would have indicted Trump if he could have
by Philip Klein
 | July 24, 2019 02:00 PM



In a mostly uneventful hearing with Robert Mueller, some Democrats believed they hit pay dirt by establishing that President Trump would have been indicted were it not for Department of Justice guidance against prosecuting a sitting president. But after hours of Mueller’s testimony, the answer to that hypothetical remains just as unclear as ever.

In reaction to the House Judiciary Committee hearing, NBC’s Chuck Todd concluded Democrats established that “Mueller didn't charge Pres. Trump because of [DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel] guidance” and David French tweeted that it was now “abundantly clear” that Mueller “didn't bring obstruction charges because of the OLC opinion only.”

The strongest evidence in Democrats favor came when Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., asked Mueller, "The reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president?"

Mueller responded, "That is correct."

This is potentially significant because Democrats pushing impeachment are trying to argue, essentially, that Mueller would have indicted Trump if he could have, but because he determined he could not, his report should be seen as him passing along all his evidence to Congress to finish the job.

That’s the point that Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., seized on.

Kamala Harris
@KamalaHarris
I'll say it again: Robert Mueller basically returned an impeachment referral in his report. Congress must hold this president accountable. The House must begin impeachment proceedings.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/sorry-folks-but-it-still-isnt-clear-that-robert-mueller-would-have-indicted-trump-if-he-could-have

[Bill Cipher]

I really hope the democrats start impeachment proceedings.  These shenanigans today have only further muddied an already muddy, circumstantial case and, if anything, have only further justified any Senator who votes to not convict if the democrats are stupid enough to impeach. 

What a wonderful example for the GOP to run with in the Fall:  you delivered the House to the democrats and what did they do with that trust?  They squandered it playing stupid little impeachment games.  They wasted everybody’s time and got nothing done. 

[EdJames]

I really hope the democrats start impeachment proceedings.  These shenanigans today have only further muddied an already muddy, circumstantial case and, if anything, have only further justified any Senator who votes to not convict if the democrats are stupid enough to impeach. 

What a wonderful example for the GOP to run with in the Fall:  you delivered the House to the democrats and what did they do with that trust? They squandered it playing stupid little impeachment games.  They wasted everybody’s time and got nothing done.

Great point!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Sorry folks, but it still isn't clear that Robert Mueller would have indicted Trump if he could have
by Philip Klein
 | July 24, 2019 02:00 PM



In a mostly uneventful hearing with Robert Mueller, some Democrats believed they hit pay dirt by establishing that President Trump would have been indicted were it not for Department of Justice guidance against prosecuting a sitting president. But after hours of Mueller’s testimony, the answer to that hypothetical remains just as unclear as ever.

In reaction to the House Judiciary Committee hearing, NBC’s Chuck Todd concluded Democrats established that “Mueller didn't charge Pres. Trump because of [DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel] guidance” and David French tweeted that it was now “abundantly clear” that Mueller “didn't bring obstruction charges because of the OLC opinion only.”

The strongest evidence in Democrats favor came when Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., asked Mueller, "The reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president?"

Mueller responded, "That is correct."

This is potentially significant because Democrats pushing impeachment are trying to argue, essentially, that Mueller would have indicted Trump if he could have, but because he determined he could not, his report should be seen as him passing along all his evidence to Congress to finish the job.

That’s the point that Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., seized on.
more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/sorry-folks-but-it-still-isnt-clear-that-robert-mueller-would-have-indicted-trump-if-he-could-have

Mueller actually reversed himself later in the hearing, and said that the OLC memo was not the reason Trump wasn't invited.  He reversed himself - in all likelihood -- because he was already on record having told AG Barr three times -- in front of witnesses - that the lack of an indictment was due to a lack of evidence, not due to the memo saying a sitting President couldn't be indicted.

[Bigun]

Great point!

It absolutely is!   

[musiclady]

I really hope the democrats start impeachment proceedings.  These shenanigans today have only further muddied an already muddy, circumstantial case and, if anything, have only further justified any Senator who votes to not convict if the democrats are stupid enough to impeach. 

What a wonderful example for the GOP to run with in the Fall:  you delivered the House to the democrats and what did they do with that trust?  They squandered it playing stupid little impeachment games.  They wasted everybody’s time and got nothing done.

I'm with you.

Get those "Nay" votes reversed and start impeachment proceedings. 

It's a sure loser for them, and I LIKE that!