Trump's Four Obstruction of Justice Crimes 100% proven in the Mueller Report

Ok, I done did that, and your point is? You have no point. Trump doesn't shop there either, because he looks down at people like you and me who do shop there.

 

OLC:

The indictment or cnminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions
October 16, 2000​

A Sitting President 's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, 222, 260 (2000) (OLC Op.).

If you think Trump is going to be President forever you're the one standing down-wind while I'm pissing.

 

That is about indictment and prosecution. That does not stop Mueller from saying "yes, President Trump broke XXX laws, here's why I believe that....". Just like Starr did to Bill Clinton when he said that Clinton broke perjury laws, yet did not push for an indictment or prosecution. Try again.

And fyi, that belief has been around ever since the DOJ has existed and the subject has come up. Which is why no sitting President has ever been indicted or prosecuted.

PS: One more thing...you said that your claim happened under THIS DOJ...that quote of yours was from 2000.

 

Hah.... Funny. So you just discovered that a document from October 16, 2000 doesn't keep prosecutors previous to 2000 from recommending indictments before 2000?

That is just hilarious!

 

Yes it does!!!!!

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...even-say-that-trump-committed-a-crime.556548/

Well, let me see. Is this DOJ investigation before or after 2000? Is "previous President's"? You tell me.... Us time travelers sometimes get a bit confused.

Look. I don't think we've debated before. Read my sig. You're not going to "get" me with any of this nonsense.

 

FYI I don't ever shop at Walmart or on Amazon. They're monopolizing retail. In the future maybe not worry about points I'm trying to make if I'm not addressing you. I suspect your right about Trump not shopping at Walmart ... though they do sell Ivanka's fashions.

 

I can’t help it that I’m laughing at your post

 

The 2000 document cities the opinion from the 70s, it simply reauthorizes it. Read it

 

If they don't lead the retail business, your costs will rise since the competition will be nil.

 

You laugh at the unfunny and that is why you are easily swayed by a con-man.

 

Oh no, the comments are comical and the desperation makes me smile

 

Agreed. In addition as we move closer to the next election -continuing to hammer on this dead drum only serves to weaken the Democrats chances in the next election.

 

No! This document is from October 16, 2000: No indicting a sitting President!.. period!

https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download

Who the hell cares what they did before 2000? Only thing that matters is what Mueller was instructed to do in 2017!

 

Of course, that’s been the opinion of the DOJ since watergate, but that doesn’t sav they can’t recommend an indictment as has always happened with prior investigations of president that lead to impeachment.

 

Oh for goodness sake, you pay attention. You cannot have a successful prosecution without testimony. Unless of course, you are a deranged, malcontent alt-leftie.

 

One more "of course". One more absurd "wingnut media argument". It's like an onion of nonsensical arguments. One is debunked, a new one pops up.

One by one the peels in your onion of wingnut media fake arguments are shown to be wrong. Just throw away the onion already. It's rotten at it's core!

Here....

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...even-say-that-trump-committed-a-crime.556548/

Now, what's the next one? Or do we need to wait for you to look it up on Breitbart?

The last one is: "Trump is gong to be President forever".... so why don't we just jump to that one already? And save some time

 

That was merely his personal opinion after concluding the investigation....nothing in the DOJ prevented him from doing so if he had the evidence.

Sorry.....

 

Those are technicalities at best. The bottom line is that it is like they took a thousand angles or points of entry into the matter and gained entry at 996 entry points. Everything was discovered and nothing was found. Therefore justice was fulfilled. So to say it was obstructed is essentially irrelevant. When you accuse an American of betraying his country, thereby putting his reputation, freedom and life itself on the line. And when it turns out that it isn't true. Then you owe that man a mighty apology. To not do so, but rather to instead dredge up this nonsense about obstruction of justice is itself an injustice, a naked abuse of power for the purpose of subverting a free and fair election. It is beneath contempt.

 

Geez...did you even read it?

The first paragraph: "In 1973, the Department concluded 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. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution."

All that memo does is reauthroize the 1973 memo of law....it doesn't change anything. Starr was operating under the same standard

 

You reckon? I thought Trump told Barr that whatever he wanted to publish (evidence) then go ahead, it's all declassified. That's why the democrats were having a dicky fit with national security etc..

 

Not a single shred of this will matter to the Trumponians. They are utterly unable to comprehend facts when presented to them. Its almost like some form of mental illness. Someone should probably study the phenomenon.

 

"comical and desperation"? Oh my gosh, you do indeed have a vivid imagination. I won't laugh at you though.

 

Nah, that was the folks that created a false accusation about a Russian conspiracy

 

Or it could be people who think that the fairy godmother is alive and well.

 

Man! We are now getting to the part where you get ridiculous. One more time: how many times have you seen a prosecutor testify in a trial? And, in any case, if Mueller, for some weird reason (I can't think of any but... who knows), were called to testify in Trump's criminal case... what makes you think he'd have any problem whatsoever doing so?

This is just nonsense!