The one prosecutor whose opinion matters - Mueller - declined to come to a conclusion on whether he obstructed justice and he is the one who looked at all the evidence.

Nothingburger. There is over 1,000 active federal prosecutors in NY alone, 10s of thousands across the US.

certainly a lot more former prosecutors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney

Each district can have up to 350 federal prosecutors and there are 93 districts.

So if you pull just active attorney that's nothing. If you had former prosecutors how many is that? Almost a million? Probably more than a million former federal attorneys. Heck I know five myself and three of them are at the same gym I go to.

This isn't even a story.

More than 650 now.
https://protectdemocracy.org/update/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/

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.

400 prosecutors are not Mueller. He chose not to indict. He said it wasn't due to OLC policy.
This is really a moot issue.
If the House wants to impeach, have at it. It won't end well. For Democrats.

God, are you really this stupid??

Mueller is a stickler for precedent. DOJ policy has been not to indict a sitting POTUS, so Mueller followed that precedent. He did not exonerate the POTUS. He put the POTUS's fate into the hands of Congress.

What? I'm in agreement with the letter, but I'm sure there are tens of thousands of former federal prosecutors around. It's absolutely false that "the vast majority have signed the letter." We're not just talking about former US Attorneys.


I don't know where you get that number from, but no, not close.

You need to do a little research. Presently, there are well over 5,000 active ones. Since, these signees go back to at least Nixon, tens of thousands is a very reasonable guess.

There are 94 US Attorneys--which are political appointments. All have large staffs. Some of them have hundreds of prosecutors working for them. There are far more than you think.

Anonymous wrote:Mueller did not recommend prosecution. Period.

I think it's a little more nuanced than this. Did you read Mueller's entire report?

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.

Are you a troll? Russian?

Why do you keep repeating this lie. Did you personally read the unredacted Mueller report? If so, please post it in its entirety on DCUM.
Thanks!

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?

Because they are close to the most powerful man in the world, and that proximity to power is intoxicating. They want to keep their positions, and they will do POTUS's bidding to stay where they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Prosecutors are not in the business of exonerate people. They bring charge or shut up. It's a rookie mistake to include that politically charged line in the report. Mueller did not bring charge. AG and Rosenstein didn't bring charge. Case closed.

This.

A long term AUSA that I know is appalled at that letter. Said that he spent his career leaving politics out of his decision making and that he did not believe that there was a case for obstruction of justice. He also said that far more career prosecutors would disagree with that letter than those who signed it.

Cool story, bro. Considering how many former federal prosecutors there are still around, it's clear the vast majority have signed the letter.

What? I'm in agreement with the letter, but I'm sure there are tens of thousands of former federal prosecutors around. It's absolutely false that "the vast majority have signed the letter." We're not just talking about former US Attorneys.

I don't know where you get that number from, but no, not close.

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.

Name five. You sound like Sarah Saunders and her FBI friends. There’s no need to lie.

Who cares. Trumps not getting charged. Nancy pelosi knows impeachment will hand a second term to trump. Only terminal TDS patients want impeachment.

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.

Name five. You sound like Sarah Saunders and her FBI friends. There’s no need to lie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Prosecutors are not in the business of exonerate people. They bring charge or shut up. It's a rookie mistake to include that politically charged line in the report. Mueller did not bring charge. AG and Rosenstein didn't bring charge. Case closed.

This.

A long term AUSA that I know is appalled at that letter. Said that he spent his career leaving politics out of his decision making and that he did not believe that there was a case for obstruction of justice. He also said that far more career prosecutors would disagree with that letter than those who signed it.

Cool story, bro. Considering how many former federal prosecutors there are still around, it's clear the vast majority have signed the letter.

What? I'm in agreement with the letter, but I'm sure there are tens of thousands of former federal prosecutors around. It's absolutely false that "the vast majority have signed the letter." We're not just talking about former US Attorneys.

Anonymous wrote:

Prosecutors are not in the business of exonerate people. They bring charge or shut up. It's a rookie mistake to include that politically charged line in the report. Mueller did not bring charge. AG and Rosenstein didn't bring charge. Case closed.

This.

A long term AUSA that I know is appalled at that letter. Said that he spent his career leaving politics out of his decision making and that he did not believe that there was a case for obstruction of justice. He also said that far more career prosecutors would disagree with that letter than those who signed it.

Cool story, bro. Considering how many former federal prosecutors there are still around, it's clear the vast majority have signed the letter.

Anonymous wrote:

Prosecutors are not in the business of exonerate people. They bring charge or shut up. It's a rookie mistake to include that politically charged line in the report. Mueller did not bring charge. AG and Rosenstein didn't bring charge. Case closed.

This.

A long term AUSA that I know is appalled at that letter. Said that he spent his career leaving politics out of his decision making and that he did not believe that there was a case for obstruction of justice. He also said that far more career prosecutors would disagree with that letter than those who signed it.

Doesn’t matter. Cnn would run with that letter if only one person signed it. They are shameless.

Prosecutors are not in the business of exonerate people. They bring charge or shut up. It's a rookie mistake to include that politically charged line in the report. Mueller did not bring charge. AG and Rosenstein didn't bring charge. Case closed.

This.

A long term AUSA that I know is appalled at that letter. Said that he spent his career leaving politics out of his decision making and that he did not believe that there was a case for obstruction of justice. He also said that far more career prosecutors would disagree with that letter than those who signed it.