And let's not forget when he supposedly sent people to Hawaii to investigate Obama's birth certificate. I remember his being interviewed and saying that his people found "amazing" things over there and it would only be a matter of time before it all came out. He was subsequently interviewed by John King of CNN who asked for a followup of that "investigation" and Trump prevaricated. When King pressed the issue, Trump said that's why King's show had poor ratings.I’d like to remind you this isn’t the first time Trump has started a fishing expedition, do you remember his voter fraud commission?
I think most people would agree that Alan Dershowitz is more of an attention whore than he is an advocate.@FF
wjk said:
Then Mueller should have stated that Trump committed a crime(s) but can't be indicted because of constitutional restraints...
See Ken Starr's investigation of Clinton.
WeToddDid2 said:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing. And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially -- it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge...
Legal principles should still apply. Guilt wasn't proven. If it had been, Mueller could have stated so. In my opinion, it's unfair to imply that when guilt can't be proven, it can't be disproven either. That concept makes everyone potentially guilty of whatever anyone wants to accuse them of.
The constitution calls for a different approach regarding the sitting president, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about an investigator stating if there's guilt or not. To use the unfairness argument is b.s. It was unfair to state it the way he did, IMO. I agree with Alan Dershowitz' opinion, paragraph 4 in particular:
"Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax TV: Mueller Crossed Line"
Robert Mueller was out of line to imply President Donald Trump might have obstructed justice during the two-year Russia investigation, attorney Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV.
Minutes after Mueller addressed the media and the American public Wednesday morning to wrap up his Russia probe, Dershowitz joined Newsmax TV host John Bachman for his immediate thoughts.
"I think it was improper for Mueller to say that if there had been evidence that the president hadn't committed a crime, we would have said so. That sounds to me very much like what [former FBI director James] Comey said about Hillary Clinton and was so criticized," Dershowitz said.
"I don't think that was in his place to say that. He could just as easily have said, if there were evidence that [Trump] had committed a crime, we would have said so. But the implication was that maybe he committed a crime, but there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove it.
"I think he went beyond the authority of a prosecutor and committed the same error that we all condemned Comey for committing in relation to Hillary Clinton."
Dershowitz argued Mueller, who announced in his Wednesday morning remarks he is resigning as special counsel and returning to private life because his investigation into Russian election interference is over, gave a "different twist" on his report than Attorney General William Barr.
I think most people will agree that you will call Dershowitz names and disparage him because you don't like his valid points.I think most people would agree that Alan Dershowitz is more of an attention whore than he is an advocate.
https://www.google.com/search?ei=0x...j0i22i30j33i160j33i21j33i22i29i30.A2XYNHCMTQ8
You mean the guy who defended "innocents" like Claus von Bulow and O.J. Simpson? You mean that guy? That's the guy from whom you're drawing your comfort of Trump's "innocence?"I think most people will agree that you will call Dershowitz names and disparage him because you don't like his valid points.
Furthermore, why you anyone listen to anything that you have to say? You don't even possess elementary comprehension skills?
You mean the guy who defended "innocents" like Claus von Bulow and O.J. Simpson? You mean that guy? That's the guy from whom you're drawing your comfort of Trump's "innocence?"
As for comprehension skills, elementary or otherwise, don't talk about stuff you don't understand.
Goes without saying.You see, Trump is innocent like OJ was innocent
The problem is you guys had him guilty of treason and collusion before an investigation ever started, before he ever took office. After 2 1/2 years of that drum beat, it's now impossible for the left to accept anything different regardless of evidence or lack thereof.You see, Trump is innocent like OJ was innocent
"Can you show me where in your report you say you had probable cause to indict a sitting president but because of those memos you couldn't indict him?" Levin asked of Mueller.