Ah yes...interruptus.
Who lied about what non crime? Obstruction of justice does not require an underlying crime. It is obstruction to hinder an investigation.
WP said:
This stongly and negatively reminds me of the 97% of all scientists line you here concerning climate change. The group has a common interest in removing Donald J Trump from the Oval Office. Pass me some salt.
Stop being silly. You first said that the obstruction chargers were in the minority and were wrong; now you say they are in the majority and are still wrong. Obstruction has a pretty clearly defined legal threshold involving three steps. It is not like the murky situations around murder etc. Of the ten situations Mueller described as obstructive, which ones failed on which of the three criteria? I know that you don't want Trump to have committed obstruction, but just saying he didn't doesn't make him innocent. The charge has to fail on the merits. Can you point out where the charges fail?
Where did you get this quote, because that is Mueller's only job?
Screwy article by someone trying desperately to salvage something. First, there does have to be a legal investigation and that is not a given. Second, the investigations in the article did have a crime, so the article is a large red herring. It is commonly understood that lying to the FBI is a crime, even if it is not about the crime they are investigating. However, this assumes the FBI has a crime to investigate. They do not have a right to ask questions for no reason.
You are mixing apples with oranges. I said the belief that Trump has committed impeachable crimes is likely a minority opinion, in the USA, at this time. Another large minority opinion is that it is all an attempt to reverse the 2016 election to whatever extent possible.
It is a paraphrasing of Mueller's explanation on page 1 of volume 2 why he "determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment" in line with the opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel that " “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.”
What? If there is a question in there, please clarify what you want to know.
In that case, just to be clear, decisions about prosecuting the President is Mueller's only job. So, your paraphrase is not just misleading, it's completely backward.
Okay, let's cut to the chase. In your opinion, what was the origin of the investigations into the Trump campaign?
If that is the mainstream interpretation, it could not be more wrong.
The only thing it says is that Mueller actually took the Nixon-era OLC memo saying the President can't be indicted far more seriously than such a rubbish memo has any right to be treated.
In my opinion, no one knows and no one ever will. The reason is that it did not start as an investigation but as idle talk. Since investigations are supposed to start with probable cause that a crime was committed, that is a problem.
This is total bollocks J. His report literally explains why he is not going to make a decision about medicating and says who should make that decision.
