Mueller admits: Can’t Indict a Sitting President

UsualName said:
We don’t know what Mueller has. And, again, Trump is not the be all, end all of the investigation.
More...

I cede the principle thesis of your point about Trump not being the nexus of the investigation. We do know something about what Mueller has to date - we have indictments on a lobbyist and a Russian Troll Farm. The President has not been named or referenced in either.
 
CaptainObvious said:
"Now let’s put the unindictable standard to a legal challenge. What if Donald Trump shot Robert Mueller on the White House lawn in cold blood? Would the president be above the law in that situation? And, if the president can be indicted in one matter, why not in another matter? Where would we draw the line if a line was appropriate?

The truth is this presumption of implied power of the presidency has never been legally tested. Until then, it’s all theories."

Why? Because the shooting would have actual evidence, something which is sorely lacking in the alleged Russian conspiracy.
More...
Evidence is far from lacking.Start with Trumps son and son in law and campaign manager meeting with Russians for help with hurting Hillarys campaign.
 
Last edited:
bone said:
I cede the principle thesis of your point about Trump not being the nexus of the investigation. We do know something about what Mueller has to date - we have indictments on a lobbyist and a Russian Troll Farm. The President has not been named or referenced in neither.
More...

Right. That’s why I asked frog, indict Trump for what? It’s neither in nor out of the question.

I think we all should just take a deep breathe on this and stop letting cable news tell us the Mueller investigation is all about Trump and arguing over that false narrative. It really is not. It’s about exposing and cleaning up Russian interference in our supposedly free and fair elections.
 
Tony Stark said:
Evidence is far from from lacking.Start with Trumps son and son in law and campaign manager meeting with Russians for help with hurting Hillarys campaign.
More...

You’re just wishing. At least UsualName can make a cogent, reasoned argument. Hell, I cede quite a bit of his point and liked his post.
 
The Master Troller at it again.

I hope for Mueller’s sake that the FBI had a mole in Hillary’s campaign as well.

Strzok and Page didn’t help matters for Mueller either.
 
The man does have an insufferable personality. Melania checked herself into the hospital because she needed a breather.
 
bone said:
The Master Troller at it again.

I hope for Mueller’s sake that the FBI had a mole in Hillary’s campaign as well.

Strzok and Page didn’t help matters for Mueller either.
More...

Why do you hope the fbi had a mole in the Clinton campaign? Criminal investigations should not have an equivalency standard for politicians. If one campaign is suspected of breaking the law that doesn’t automatically make the other campaign suspicious. That would be the opposite of justice.
 
UsualName said:
Indict Trump for what?
More...


Oh pardon me. What was I thinking?

I guess the daily drumbeat about indicting trump for collusion (not a crime anyway) and obstruction made me think there was tard talk going on about that.

Crock Alert!!!!!

Astute viewers will note that as Mueller's chances of indicting Trump start going downhill, they will begin re-framing it so that it was never about indicting trump but about loftier goals, thereby trying to sidestep the reality of their having tried to get him indicted, and assuring us that it would happen, and it turning out to be A BIG DEFEAT.

Usual Tard's little dance here today is Exhibit A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top