“For nearly two years, President Trump’s lawyers and defenders have argued that it was impossible for him to illegally obstruct the Russia investigation, no matter his intentions, because he has full authority over federal law enforcement as head of the executive branch. But in his highly anticipated report, Robert Mueller rejected that sweeping view of executive power,” the New York Times reports. “Still, Mr. Mueller concluded that it would be inappropriate for now for prosecutors to make a decision — one way or the other — because analyzing the evidence ‘could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes.’ He reasoned that the Justice Department has for a half-century interpreted the Constitution as barring the indictment of a sitting president, so Mr. Trump could not get a trial and a chance to clear his name while he is running the country.” “The special counsel’s rationale left the door open to the possibility that after Mr. Trump leaves office, prosecutors could re-examine the evidence Mr. Mueller gathered and charge the president. Attorney General William Barr tried to slam that door shut last month when he announced that in his view, the evidence did not support charging Mr. Trump regardless of any constitutional issues about charging sitting presidents.” The Atlantic: “The redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report released on Thursday runs 448 pages. But its most important implication can be summarized in a single sentence: There is sufficient evidence that President Trump obstructed justice to merit impeachment hearings.” “A basic principle lies at the heart of the American criminal-justice system: The accused is entitled to a fair defense and a chance to clear his name. Every American is entitled to this protection, from the humblest citizen all the way up to the chief executive. And that, Mueller explained in his report, is why criminal allegations against a sitting president should be considered by Congress and not the Justice Department. The Mueller report, in short, is an impeachment referral.” While Mueller did not reach a conclusion on obstruction and Barr ruled out a DOJ case against the president, there’s one graf in the report that pundits are focusing on as a potential wink to Congress: The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
Former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara told CNN that President Trump could be prosecuted when he is out of office and that the Mueller report made it clear the Mueller team believes there is “future legal jeopardy.”
Not even New York will ultimately have the balls to prosecute Trump after he leaves office, in my opinion. Even if New York goes stupid, there will likely be consequences that will ultimately shake up the strong Democratic political position in that state. It would likely have something to do with making new enemies in business. Perhaps maybe New York should go ahead and knock themselves out, as it were. Besides, New York still would have to prove their case in front of a jury.
Are you kidding me? I bet they can't wait. Trump is going down. Probably to hell (let's hope against hope that there is such a place), but his first stop will be prison.
I wonder what planet MPS is on,SDNY and The New York AG have made it clear they want Trump.New Yorkers hate Trump so he wont get the same jury he would get in Alabama.
You think maybe they're counting down the days in anticipation, the way kids do before Christmas? I know I would.