375 former prosecutors believe Trump obstructed justice and should be charged as a felon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the more reason he's determined to "win" by whatever means in 2020.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when Trump is no longer President, he can be charged with obstruction for crimes he committed while President?

IDK but after he dies maybe democrats can dig up his corpse and put it on trial.

#resist

LOL. I know. It's ridiculous

Nope, if you read the OP, you would learn that the only reason Trump wasn't charged now is because he's President. Being President isn't a lifetime immunity pass for all your misdeeds.

Not true. Rosenstein and Barr met with Mueller on March 5. Mueller told them he was not going to indict the president for obstruction of justice. And that decision had nothing to do with the OLC memo. Barr wrote this point specifically in his principal conclusion letter. Barr and Rosenstein's decision to not charge the president also has nothing to do with the OLC memo.

400 prosecutors signed a letter stating otherwise.

We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

The reason Trump is not charged by Mueller, and subsequently not charged by Barr and Rosenstein has nothing to do with the OLC memo. Barr wrote it explicitly. 400 former prosecutors' opinion in this case is simply noise and has no real effect.

^^^^ Hasn't read the Mueller report and is spreading misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when Trump is no longer President, he can be charged with obstruction for crimes he committed while President?

IDK but after he dies maybe democrats can dig up his corpse and put it on trial.

#resist

LOL. I know. It's ridiculous

Nope, if you read the OP, you would learn that the only reason Trump wasn't charged now is because he's President. Being President isn't a lifetime immunity pass for all your misdeeds.

Not true. Rosenstein and Barr met with Mueller on March 5. Mueller told them he was not going to indict the president for obstruction of justice. And that decision had nothing to do with the OLC memo. Barr wrote this point specifically in his principal conclusion letter. Barr and Rosenstein's decision to not charge the president also has nothing to do with the OLC memo.

So you're talking Barr's word for it, after he lied to Congress. That's not exactly the same thing as you hearing it from Mueller himself, is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is grounds for impeachment, plain and simple.

The real question is, why do Barr and Giuliani disagree with 400+ former federal prosecutors?

Yeah no.

The Mueller report exonerated Trump and his campaign.

From the actual crime, this is absolutely true.

Please stop making up stuff, and investigate why and how Obama and the WH and State allowed Russian interference for years.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know why the NYTimes isn't covering this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when Trump is no longer President, he can be charged with obstruction for crimes he committed while President?

The general idea is that yes, any privilege you enjoy as president goes away when you leave office. That's why Ford pardoned Nixon.

Trump doesn't even play a president on TV.

[Anonymous]

And by the by - your grifter in chief will definitely have to be forcibly removed from the White House. That kook is not going down without a fight. He and his entire family and Kellyanne NJ trash, Sarah Slanders (brother kills dogs and father is the biggest liar ever), Bill fat ass Barr, Stephen "wishes he could own his gayness" Miller - that crazy f probably killed lots of animals too, along with whomever else is left really should waive the white flag now and give up.

Trump, his comrades and his supporters are all a disgrace to this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

Reports also say more prosecutors plan to sign on - from both parties and also independents.

Over 400 scientists think mankind is warming the planet. They’re all wrong. So are these guys. Thanks for your opinion though!

Even if they are wrong (they aren't) the fact is, the planet is warming and human excess deposits of carbon into the atmosphere and plastics into the seas are not helping. Maybe you missed the report yesterday that 1 million species face extinction on the planet? Do you understand how that will impact the ability for humans to survive over the long term?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mueller did not recommend prosecution. Period.

He didn't recommend it BECAUSE of the DOJ guidelines. He did not exonerate the president. That was made very specific in the report, leaving the decision to the Congress. He also cited the obstruction - lying, taking the fifth, destruction of evidence - as specific reasons he couldn't come to a conclusion on the "Russia collusion;" but the obstruction, he lays out 10 specific cases, 5 of which are absolute slam dunks, in terms of prosecutable cases.

Why are you defending a criminal president?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means nothing. Very likely, there are just as many who disagree. You do know that there are thousands upon thousands of former federal prosecutors? I know of some who strongly disagree with these signees.

Lets see if they write a letter.

Do people still write letters? How quaint!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And by the by - your grifter in chief will definitely have to be forcibly removed from the White House. That kook is not going down without a fight. He and his entire family and Kellyanne NJ trash, Sarah Slanders (brother kills dogs and father is the biggest liar ever), Bill fat ass Barr, Stephen "wishes he could own his gayness" Miller - that crazy f probably killed lots of animals too, along with whomever else is left really should waive the white flag now and give up.

Trump, his comrades and his supporters are all a disgrace to this country.

Hhmmmm. If they “waive” the white flag, what should they use in its stead?
I will take my answer after you clear the spittle from your screen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why the NYTimes isn't covering this?

Meghan Markle has the baby. There is no other news worth covering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller did not recommend prosecution. Period.

He didn't recommend it BECAUSE of the DOJ guidelines. He did not exonerate the president. That was made very specific in the report, leaving the decision to the Congress. He also cited the obstruction - lying, taking the fifth, destruction of evidence - as specific reasons he couldn't come to a conclusion on the "Russia collusion;" but the obstruction, he lays out 10 specific cases, 5 of which are absolute slam dunks, in terms of prosecutable cases.

Why are you defending a criminal president?

Not true. Nowhere in the Mueller report says “but for OLC guideline he would have charged”.

AG’s letter explicitly states it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller did not recommend prosecution. Period.

He didn't recommend it BECAUSE of the DOJ guidelines. He did not exonerate the president. That was made very specific in the report, leaving the decision to the Congress. He also cited the obstruction - lying, taking the fifth, destruction of evidence - as specific reasons he couldn't come to a conclusion on the "Russia collusion;" but the obstruction, he lays out 10 specific cases, 5 of which are absolute slam dunks, in terms of prosecutable cases.

Why are you defending a criminal president?

Not true. Nowhere in the Mueller report says “but for OLC guideline he would have charged”.

AG’s letter explicitly states it.

How many pages of the Mueller report did you read?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller did not recommend prosecution. Period.

He didn't recommend it BECAUSE of the DOJ guidelines. He did not exonerate the president. That was made very specific in the report, leaving the decision to the Congress. He also cited the obstruction - lying, taking the fifth, destruction of evidence - as specific reasons he couldn't come to a conclusion on the "Russia collusion;" but the obstruction, he lays out 10 specific cases, 5 of which are absolute slam dunks, in terms of prosecutable cases.

Why are you defending a criminal president?

Not true. Nowhere in the Mueller report says “but for OLC guideline he would have charged”.

AG’s letter explicitly states it.

Conclusion to Volume II:
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach
that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Earlier in Volume II Mueller states that although OLC guidance states that the President may not be prosecuted during his term, criminal investigations may be carried out, and that they conducted a factual investigation to "preserve the evidence".

Even with physical evidence in Watergate, Jaworski did not choose to recommend impeachment, but rather asked the grand jury to essentially do so--and that didn't even happen until the tapes emerged. Here we have a president who avoids records of corrupt actions--i.e. he stated opinion about lawyers who take notes. I'm sure he has long experience and was taught well by Roy Cohn how to avoid leaving footprints. In other words Trump is far more practiced at corruption--what his base regards as his "authenticity" with no sense of irony whatsoever.