<<MOD WARNING>> This is why Mueller cannot charge or even say that Trump committed a crime

MOD WARNING!!

Not only can Mueller not indict a sitting President. He can't even so much as state that the President committed a crime. And here is why. (Page 2)

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (201 (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy, " and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern." Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.​

*************************************************************************

Footnote: 5 For that reason, criticisms have been lodged against the practice of naming unindicted coconspirators in an indictment. See United States v.Briggs,514 F.2d 794,802 (5th Cir. 1975) ("The courts have struck down with strong language efforts by grand juries to accuse persons of crime while affording them no forum in which to vindicate themselves."); see also Justice Manual § 9-11.130​

 

Cool, are we all done now?

 

Innocent till proven guilty is a cornerstone of American Law.

 

Now you are just being unfair to them, Golem...by using facts and reason.

 

Actually he can indict anybody. The OLC is opinion, not law.

 

Maybe the Southern District of New York will indict him? Or are they federal? Well maybe the attorney general of New York? Just trying to keep your hope's up man. Don't give up. Only 2,045 days left.

 

So, remember all those that said Trump Jr. was going down? Mueller had the goods? What? No indictment?

The left is desperate to invent something that after four investigations found nothing. It's all they have since the only other thing they can run on is turning around Trumps fantastic economy or give away free stuff.

 

However, he can and did say that there was no evidence of collusion. That appears to be very straightforward. Everything the democrats have done after that was to try to convict Trump for obstruction of the investigation of a crime which was not committed and obstruction which did not obstruct. No matter how many times I say it , it sounds crazy.

 

You are. The rest of us are just starting.

 

If Mueller could never bring charges against the president then the entire exercise of appointing a special counsel was a waste of time and money??Since we know the law was changed AFTER Ken Starr are we now saying that this approach to reigning in a wayward president is now neutered?

 

I see no way any presidential act can be called a crime since rules stipulate he can't be charged and the purpose of a charge is to level an an announcement that the prosecution authority wants a court to determine guilt.

The old saying you must first be found guilty to actually be guilty applies.

 

The Congress is not starting. Nancy states publicly she is not.

 

Mueller was not appointed to charge the president, he was there to locate evidence the Russians had actually hacked.

Democrats trusted the claims made by the Obama team on January 6, 2017 yet as of today, May 28, 2019 no court has convened to allow the Mueller allegations to face the daylight of the law.

 

Done!

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-justice-crimes-in-the-mueller-report.556547/

Anything else?

 

Wrong! see 28 U.S.C. § 515;28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a),

 

Meh, what would be the criminal intent to want an investigation started based on a hoax dossier to end?

 

Then how in the hell did they get Clinton into a court of law so that he could lie,resulting in an impeachment????

 

We did start the impeachment of Bill Clinton upon receiving the report of Ken Starr.

Democrats got their report in mid April and this is about 6 weeks past that time.

Nancy has faced enormous pressure to commence the impeachment of Trump.

She recalls how well that worked and Starr had much more proof.

 

Bill Clinton's hubris dictated that he thought he was smarter than everyone else, which was his downfall.

 

Clinton actually did sit and testify in a court of law. And in the court of law, he committed perjury. The court understood it so the court hit Clinton with an enormous penalty.

Perjury was one of the charges that caused Clinton to be impeached which led to his finding of not guilty by the stinking Senators.

We are confident the Senate will not convict Trump.

 

Yeah! I remember. Wasn't it horrible how the guy was removed from office and then hauled off to pri...

Oh... wait a minute. That didn't happen...

Hmmmm Wonder if Nancy Pelosi learned something from that Republican fiasco.

 

She shows she probably has learned.

 

It was unconnected to Ken Starr and the law with all those congressional Democrats on board at the time was changed after Starr. Please note Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton in Court for Sexual Harassment. It was a civil not a criminal case. Clinton was never actually in court instead as happens occasionally in civil cases he sent in a sworn affadavit in which it became quite clear after the fact that he lied through his teeth that allowed Ken Starr to present to congress a case for Perjury The Republican house then voted to charge, and the Republican senate did not vote to convict. Democrats and a few REpublican senator voted not to remove Clinton from office ie convict. If memory serves it takes 2/3rds and there was no way they were going to get there without a lot of Democrat votes.

 

It does not say that the special counsel cannot say a crime was committed. It recommends against that out of fairness.

 

Wrong!

See United States v.Briggs,514 F.2d 794,802 (5th Cir. 1975) ("The courts have struck down with strong language efforts by grand juries to accuse persons of crime while affording them no forum in which to vindicate themselves."); see also Justice Manual § 9-11.130​