Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.
The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.
Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding.
“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 former federal prosecutors wrote.
“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”
The statement is notable for the number of people who signed it — 375 as of Monday afternoon — and the positions and political affiliations of some on the list. It was posted online Monday afternoon; those signing it did not explicitly address what, if anything, they hope might happen next.
Among the high-profile signers are Bill Weld, a former U.S. attorney and Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is running against Trump as a Republican; Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush Administration; John S. Martin, a former U.S. attorney and federal judge appointed to his posts by two Republican presidents; Paul Rosenzweig, who served as senior counsel to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr; and Jeffrey Harris, who worked as the principal assistant to Rudolph W. Giuliani when he was at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.
The list also includes more than 20 former U.S. attorneys and more than 100 people with at least 20 years of service at the Justice Department — most of them former career officials. The signers worked in every presidential administration since that of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
The signatures were collected by the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, which counts Justice Department alumni among its staff and was contacted about the statement last week by a group of former federal prosecutors, said Justin Vail, an attorney at Protect Democracy.
“We strongly believe that Americans deserve to hear from the men and women who spent their careers weighing evidence and making decisions about whether it was sufficient to justify prosecution, so we agreed to send out a call for signatories,” Vail said. “The response was overwhelming. This effort reflects the voices of former prosecutors who have served at DOJ and signed the statement.”
The Republican Party should not permit Donald Trump to run for president in 2020.
Almost 400 federal prosecutors say he should be indicted , and he is going to be on the presidential ballot? It is absurd.
Still waiting for you to enumerate all the instances of obstruction. On what charges should he be indicted. You realize that this dismal effort by the left to bring about some kind of action against Trump has run out of steam and no one is stoking the firebox. And the voting public certainly has ceased to care, if they ever did.
Maybe, like the rest of us have, you should read the Mueller report and this article. Trump is going down!
Couldn't happen to a more stupid, ignorant, childish, vindictive, hateful, insane fool.
He should have known not to play in this league with his obvious mental disabilities.
Well, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it. Of course, as they say, opinions are like . . . well, something everyone has.
Because believing a liar who committed obstruction and gets his talking points from Putin is so much more believable than a group of professional prosecutors? And that makes more sense because...?
There has been no evidence presented that he committed any kind of obstruction. Nobody on the left seems to be able to come up with any examples, let indictable ones.
And what talking point from Pootie are you talking about? You sound like a broken record.
There is evidence, we saw part of it in real time with our own eyes and ears. If you can't even speak to the truth of things seen and heard from the source, no way to even debate this. Some of the evidence was also in the redacted Mueller report (not Barrspin). So you are choosing not to see what is right in front of our faces.
Guess you need to move outside the FoxTrump network for news. He retweets and passes it on all the time. And so do republicans right here. Example
You are absolutely correct, however not all opinions are created equal. Opinions by experts in the field are more widely accepted than those by laymen.
Yeah but not all experts in that field agree with that opinion.
Links???
You really need a link to remember that the Attorney General of the United States - the nation's chief prosecutor - AND the Deputy Attorney General BOTH agreed the president had not committed obstruction?
Did Trump Obstruct Justice? Here's What Former Prosecutors Think
So here's one,
And another,
And more,
Dershowitz: Mueller got the law 'all wrong' on obstruction of justice
The AG is not working for the country, he's made it very clear he is working for Trump alone. Its one of the reasons Mueller chided him in that letter. Of course we don't trust him. And Dershowitz is a moron since his OJ days. No way you would ever accept on piece of this shitshow from a democrat. Its clear to a majority of Americans think Trump committed obstruction, and that he is NOT above the law as a few seem to think. Lets see a group letter of prosecutors that agree with you and Dershowitz willing to write a public letter.
Wow, so you do know how to post links, I'm surprised.
The claim that you cannot obstruct unless another crime has been charged, has been roundly dismissed by experts. Obstruction is a stand alone crime irrespective any any other crimes being investigated.
The claim that he couldn't have obstructed because he was too stupid to succeed in that obstruction is another non-sensible claim. Attempting to commit a crime is just as much a crime.
All of which are pointed out in Mueller's report. Why the Hell do you think Trump is so opposed to Don McGahn testifying?
Search my posts and you will find many links. I use them routinely.
Like I said: Lots of "experts" in the world. Lots of opinions. Educated people disagree on things every day in every field. Getting a bunch of people to sign on to an internet poll or letter doesn't actually settle much.
It is a crime, but it's not the same crime. That is, it doesn't have the same elements to be proven. Attempts fall into the class of inchoate crimes, where you don't actually commit the crime but you tried to or you helped someone else do it or get away with it. Proving them can be tricky.
Was he "attempting" something? Generally, you need both the intent and some substantial act toward satisfying that intent.
We aren't mind readers, so we look at actions. It's hard to prove intent without unambiguous actions or words. We just don't have that with Trump. If you walk into a bank, point a gun at a teller and say give me the money, intent is pretty clear. But if you ask a friend, "should I rob this bank? I'd sure like to rob this bank. Wouldn't it be great if I could rob the bank and get away with it" but then no action is taken, you don't have anything in the way of a criminal act.
Trump ranted and raved, bitched and moaned, and even may have said something to the FBI Director along the lines of "can't you just drop this?" That doesn't say much. Almost every person who has ever been under investigation or arrest has asked the same thing and it never amounts to "obstruction of justice" because it doesn't go beyond that. If Trump, for example, actually withheld documents he was required to produce or actually ordered someone to lie to investigators, we'd have obstruction.
But we also have a lot of evidence of Trump cooperating with the investigation. We know he told his people to answer questions, produce documents, and tell the truth. We know he himself answered questions even if it wasn't in the format that maybe some would prefer. Trump and his people were objectively cooperative even if they objected to the investigation. Objecting is not obstruction.
Yet Stephen Binhak also said:
Oppps
No one is stopping them but themselves. They have been "certain" that Donald Trump is an agent of Russia for 2 1/2 years - at least when a news microphone is in front to them. But when it comes down to taking action - something that is actually within their power . . . nothing happens.
Why? Because they're full of shit. What they really want is to have talk of scandal during the election. That's what they really care about.
I know that you're not that out of touch Tacos! Since the Democrats have taken the House, hearings have occurred [Cohen], subpoenas have been issued and now today they voted to hold Barr in contempt.
It's all meaningless without an actual impeachment. They plunge ahead with this silly action against the AG because they know it will look meaningful even though it isn't. The only think they could do that would matter is to impeach Trump. Everything else is posturing to try to influence the vote.
What brought you to that conclusion?
I'd cite a historical reference but I know how you hate that...
They can do a plethora of things that would matter and impeaching Trump is only one of them.
So you don't support the Congress gathering all of the evidence before taking any action. Got ya.
I support gathering evidence and thoughtfully weighing it before they say absurd crap like the president is an agent of Russia . (skip to about 5:30).
Now that we know the Trump campaign did not cooperate with Russian interference, the House and Senate should be focused on how we can thwart future attempts at interference. Instead, they care only about ruining the political power of the president. Their words and actions (also inaction) prove it.
You mean 'he' right?
Yes, let's DO skip to 5:30 and avoid the context.
Secondly, since that broadcast MUCH more evidence HAS come to light.
Perhaps Rep. Swalwell has a different POV now, perhaps not.
Yet if we take Trump's example, apologies for false statements aren't necessary.
If we listen to Christy, just like Trump, Swalwell has a right to his opinion, even if it's wrong.
Exactly! It's no surprise that Trump has pulled out all the stops to make that happen. /s
BTFW, they COULD have been doing that all along. McConnell, Burr and Graham/Grassley don't seem interested. According to IC testimony, little to NOTHING has been done.
Wow, you're assuming that the statement of ONE Rep. will ruin Trump's political power?
Specifics of each please.
He does not. (1:45)
Morning Joe Grills Eric Swalwell: ‘Do You Regret Saying’ Trump is an ‘Agent of Russia?’
What would you like to see him do? Write a law? That's supposed to be the job of Congress.
It would be premature to act before the investigation was complete. Now that it appears to be complete, it might be a good time to act so long as that action is something that could actually counter the behaviors discovered by the investigation. However, I know the senate is still investigating, so maybe when they are done, we will see some actionable recommendations.
I gave you one example that makes the point. Many Democrats have focused their words and actions on attacking Trump instead of on combatting Russian interference. They know the evidence to convict on impeachment isn't there or the leadership would pursue it. Instead, they will do everything else they can to discredit the Trump administration and Republicans generally as Russian agents or sympathizers because it's the only way (in their minds) that he/they can be defeated in 2020.
Some more examples from politicians and leftist media.
Schiff: ‘Ample evidence of collusion in plain sight’
He said that AFTER the Mueller report said no US person had colluded with Russia. So don't tell me they care about evidence.
Putin Accomplice Mitch McConnell Says Case Closed
Putin accomplice. smh.
The GOP has become the Soviet party
Oh, geez.
Maxine Waters Starts "Impeach 45" Chant At 'Glamour Women Of The Year Awards'
18 months ago! Where was her evidence?
‘Case not closed, buddy’: Warren goes all in on Trump impeachment
More Democrats Call For Impeachment Proceedings Against President Trump
Last year? WTF for?
Sure Kamala. They obstructed by supplying like a million documents, by telling all their people to cooperate and testify honestly, and by answering tons and tons of questions (apparently, honestly). They did all this to cover up crimes that none of them actually committed. This is some kind of crazy loon-logic.
It is interesting that so many of the people calling for impeachment are running for president. Guess they have nothing else to offer.
Well, Bernie is the Socialist who honeymooned in the USSR and who won't condemn NoKo, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela dictators. He's correct about one thing: Trump is not a dictator. What Bernie didn't say is that Trump has never behaved like a dictator or claimed to be one.
Here are just 2 instances. There are a lot more to chose from, like ignoring legal subpoenas....
Context and FACTS are important.
Neither video confirms him stating that he wants to be a US dictator. You need to try harder.
Don't have to.
Trump hasn't made a sarcastic/humorous comment in his life, he probably wouldn't recognize it as such if he heard one. Just like the way he wanted a military parade to celebrate himself, no humor just an amazing ego coupled with a lack of functioning brain cells.
Did you forget that Trump himself canceled Obama's executive order prohibiting people with mental illness from owning guns? You also completely ignored the FACT that even those with mental illness have the right to due process.
Humor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you don't recognize it, IMO Trump does have a rather sarcastic sense of humor. I understood his first statement there to be much more joking but I guess you don't want to see it.
As for cancelling the EO, even the ACLU favored getting rid of that. You mention due process but all that EO did was strip the Second amendment rights from social Security recipients without due process. In 2015 and 2016, the Obama administration implemented a series of policies that deemed those needing a representative payee through the Social Security Administration and Veterans Affairs “mentally unfit.” As a result, millions of individuals became ineligible to purchase a firearm. No adjudication of fact, no legal representation, just a stripping of rights without due process.
Liar!!!
It only effected the ones that were so non compos mentis that they could not do anything for themselves.
Nope, not a lie. Read the link from snopes. Read the pdf below. Nowhere in the rulings or the EO will you find that they have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. It's an administrative ruling, and the EO had the Social Security Administration forward such to the NICS system so that they would be prevented from purchasing guns. If it had been adjudicated, then the SSA could not provide an administrative appeal process to remove them from said list.
While a topic to be discussed, and I do tend to agree that the mentally deficient should be closely reviewed to determine if they are competent enough to possess a gun, I firmly believe that this needs to follow the legal process and they must be properly adjudicated before their rights are taken away.
Pursuant to both the Brady Act and NIAA, the SSA final rule specifies the conditions under which individuals are to be reported for inclusion in the NICS index as Social Security or SSI disability beneficiaries who are too mentally incompetent to be trusted with firearms or ammunition. The rule also outlines SSA’s process for notifying affected individuals as well as an administrative appeals process under which such individuals may request relief from the federal Gun Control, Mental Incompetency, and Social Security Administration Final Rule firearms prohibitions.
There's the due process you demand. From your link:
The appeals process isn't through the SSA, it's through NICS.
BTW, what makes you think that a mental health adjudication can't be appealed?
And I supplied you with a link that answers that question.
By the way, this part of your quote:
Cites another venue for due process. I guess that BS has been put to bed. Thanks for pointing it out.
What link is that Tex?
I read you QUOTE and understood it just fine.
Where did I say it was the 'only way to appeal' Tex. I thought y'all were adverse to that.
It's logical that the next step after the SSA denial would be an appeal to NCIS. Or one CAN take the direct route.
Either way, it puts to bed the bullshit that the policy denied due process don't you think?
It does? How? Are you actually claiming that the ONLY appeal is through SSA? If so, prove it.
Your 'link' proves otherwise. You insist that the appeal is via SSA yet fail to recognize that an appeal IS due process of the law.
Sad...
Ditto.
Wow. Original. Took 4 minutes to whine.
Sad.
Done now Tex or do you want to wait for a mod admonition to get back to the fucking topic?
I don't bother mods with such triviality.
Where did I threaten you Tex? Please be specific.
[deleted]
Thank you for your unfounded conclusion.
In short, your allegation was BS. Noted.
No, you are wrong. You are implying that because there is an administrative fix they have due process. But the initial action of removing a persons 2nd amendment rights without going thru a legal process denies them the due process in the first place. You just cannot deny legal rights thru an administrative process, it must be performed within the judicial system.
That person has ALREADY gone through a 'legal process' to qualify for SSA for a mental disability and/or they have a representative payee because of a documented mental disability. Many representative payees are actually institutions like nursing homes.
That 'legal process' qualifies as due process. No one that has actually reviewed the SSA procedure for qualifying for mental disability can claim that they ended up in that program without a 'legal process'.
The FACT that they have an avenue of appeal adds ANOTHER level of due process.
Since WHEN? Administrative policy is PART of the 'legal process' and is the very definition of 'procedural due process'. Look it up.
Secondly, NOTHING stopped anyone from appealing their listing in a court of law. Yet you'll find that courts frown on bringing suit BEFORE one exhausts all ADMINSITATIVE avenues of mitigation, i.e. appropriate appeals.
One more thing, the SSA policy change was NOT done through an Obama EO.
Just sayin'.
When you produce some I'll review them.
I'd ask you what word games you're talking about but you've failed to support too many other claims that it's not even worth it.
Move on.
How does having an opinion equate to being a dictator?
Didn't you know that Trump is the only POTUS in our history who isn't allowed to express his opinions?
Trump doesn't have opinions, he has constipation of the mouth. Every morning while he sits on his gold throne with his unsecured phone in his hand.
Seems that you're confusing Hillary with Trump. It's well documented that she (and staff) owned and used unsecured phones, electronic devices, and servers during her SoS tenure.
Sounds like you aren't getting all the news.
A dictator is as a childish dictator does. When will folk realize we have a authoritarian fool for a president?
Funny how Hillary's emails were never hacked but the state department's were.
Seems Hillary and the two republican Sec. States before her with private servers were smart.
LOL, Jasper sure disappeared after that one...
Slight correction. Only Hillary used a private server, the 2 before her used public ones like Google, AOL, etc.
Nope. I'm still here, laughing at those who still don't know the differences between email accounts and servers. Carry on!
Apparently you do not either...
It's easy to contact them and tell them your concerns:
Hope this helps!
As a captive audience of CNN (is there any other kind?) a little while ago I saw one of the leaders being "interviewed." Being CNN, there was not a single question about the ideological history of the speaker, which almost certainly means she's hard core partisan. The interviewer let her get away with merely saying "some" of the signers were Republicans ,with no follow ups. CNN is just such a joke.
Obviously, just by the CNN interview, one knew it's partisan hackery.
And sure enough, look at the list of "Republicans". Weld, who ran against Trump in 2016 as a libertarian and admitted he wanted Hillary to win. The rest are the usual anti-Trumpers including a Judge who wanted to criminally investigate Republicans for merely suggesting Rosenstein should be impeached. That's the caliber of these idiots, deranged anti-Trumpers who think it's criminal to suggest Congress exercise it's Constitutional powers.
Sure enough, the former prosecutor is a serial donater to ACT Blue and Democratic Candidates.
Shocking CNN didn't mention that. Imagine how they would handle a similar letter from hard core Republicans.
So what about the other 469?