"Did you actually totally exonerate the President? No."

Southern Chicken said:
Right here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...rt-mueller-house-committee-testimony-n1033216

Now, in explaining the special counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution or declination decision, the report, on the bottom of page 2, Volume 2, reads as follows: "The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Now, I read that correctly?
MUELLER:

Yes.
RATCLIFFE:

All right. Now, your report -- and today, you said that at all times, the special counsel team operated under, was guided by and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?
MUELLER:

Can you repeat the last part of that question?
RATCLIFFE:

Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Can -- let me make it easier. Is...
MUELLER:

May -- can I -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
RATCLIFFE:

... can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated..."

And Here:

And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, it "authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel." That's the very first word of your report, right?
MUELLER:

That's correct.
RATCLIFFE:

Here's the problem, Director: The special counsel didn't do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So respectfully, Director, you didn't follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, "Write a confidential report about decisions reached." Nowhere in here does it say, "Write a report about decisions that weren't reached."
Click to expand...

You're not a very smart person because you don't even know what it is you think you're arguing here.

The argument you are making by selectively quoting parts of this exchange, is that because Mueller didn't challenge OLC guidelines, that means everything Trump did that Mueller laid out in Volume II didn't amount to obstruction.

That is not a legitimate legal defense.

What you're doing is admitting Trump did everything Mueller says he did in Volume II, but that because Mueller didn't challenge the OLC rule to indict Trump, nothing there Trump did was illegal.

That's what "should not be below the law" means. It means you think the President should be above the law because Mueller didn't challenge an OLC rule.
 
LV426 said:
NOTICE THE GOALPOST SHIFT.

Now it has become "suggesting charges".

Again, Mueller said that the OLC prevented him from charging a President. The only way he could would be if the OLC guidelines were challenged by a lawsuit, and that was not part of the SC purview or legislation.

So you seem to now be arguing that OLC guideline should be challenged.

Do you think that it should?
Click to expand...

Yes it should be if Mueller thought there was an actual crime committed. He didn't challenge. He had the legal authority. OLC doesn't stop him from legally challenging the DOJ policy. Question where does the OLC opinion state that Mueller couldn't recommend via report to the DOJ charges for when Trump becomes a former president? Show me. The OLC mentions sitting president. It didn't limit his ability to recommend criminal charges.
 
Last edited:
LV426 said:
You're not a very smart person because you don't even know what it is you think you're arguing here.

The argument you are making by selectively quoting parts of this exchange, is that because Mueller didn't challenge OLC guidelines, that means everything Trump did that Mueller laid out in Volume II didn't amount to obstruction.

That is not a legitimate legal defense.

What you're doing is admitting Trump did everything Mueller says he did in Volume II, but that because Mueller didn't challenge the OLC rule to indict Trump, nothing there Trump did was illegal.

That's what "should not be below the law" means. It means you think the President should be above the law because Mueller didn't challenge an OLC rule.
Click to expand...

OLC Policy isn't the LAW it is a guide that governs the DOJ employees for the umpteen time.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Yes it should be if Mueller thought there was an actual crime committed.
Click to expand...

So then you should be calling for an amendment to the Special Counsel legislation or you should be calling for a lawsuit to challenge the OLC rule.

But you're not doing that, and it's because you think the President "should not be below the law."
 
Southern Chicken said:
He had the legal authority. OLC doesn't stop him from legally challenging the DOJ policy. .
Click to expand...

But the SC legislation did.

The SC legislation wasn't to investigate the OLC guidelines, it was to investigate the attacks.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Question where does the OLC opinion state that Mueller couldn't recommend via report to the DOJ charges for when Trump becomes a former president? Show me.
Click to expand...

So now you are in the "absence of proof is proof" argument.

This is shameful.

Why didn't Mueller challenge the OLC rules? Because that wasn't what his Special Counsel was mandated or chartered to do.

The rule can only be challenged by a lawsuit, and the purview of the Special Counsel wasn't that.

So it sounds to me like you think there should be a lawsuit challenging the OLC rule, or legislation that abolishes it. Do you realize the consequences of that, should it succeed?
 
Southern Chicken said:
The OLC mentions sitting president. It didn't limit his ability to recommend criminal charges.
Click to expand...

LOL!

This is a self-contradiction.

Wow, you're making this so easy for me.

The OLC states a sitting President cannot be charged, so why would you recommend charges?

You're talking in circles, but ultimately you keep making my point for me!
 
LV426 said:
So now you are in the "absence of proof is proof" argument.

This is shameful.

Why didn't Mueller challenge the OLC rules? Because that wasn't what his Special Counsel was mandated or chartered to do.

The rule can only be challenged by a lawsuit, and the purview of the Special Counsel wasn't that.

So it sounds to me like you think there should be a lawsuit challenging the OLC rule, or legislation that abolishes it. Do you realize the consequences of that, should it succeed?
Click to expand...

Yes it was Liar! It was his mandate. He was given legal authority to do it. OLC opinion doesn't stop that.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Right here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...rt-mueller-house-committee-testimony-n1033216

Now, in explaining the special counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution or declination decision, the report, on the bottom of page 2, Volume 2, reads as follows: "The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Now, I read that correctly?
MUELLER:

Yes.
RATCLIFFE:

All right. Now, your report -- and today, you said that at all times, the special counsel team operated under, was guided by and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?
MUELLER:

Can you repeat the last part of that question?
RATCLIFFE:

Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Can -- let me make it easier. Is...
MUELLER:

May -- can I -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
RATCLIFFE:

... can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated..."

And Here:

And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, it "authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel." That's the very first word of your report, right?
MUELLER:

That's correct.
RATCLIFFE:

Here's the problem, Director: The special counsel didn't do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So respectfully, Director, you didn't follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, "Write a confidential report about decisions reached." Nowhere in here does it say, "Write a report about decisions that weren't reached."
Click to expand...

The declination decision is in plain English, dumbshit.

“The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding 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” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.”
 
Conservatives are dumbfucks.

Trump didn't do anything that amounts to obstruciton

OK he did, but he didn't because he wasn't charged.

OK he wasn't charged because of an OLC rule.

OK he is innocent of what he did because Mueller didn't challenge the rule that said a President cannot be indicted.

The rule wasn't "the President is innocent", the rule was "the President couldn't be indicted".

You are trying to conflate the two because that's the only defense you have left.
 
domer76 said:
“The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding 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” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.”
Click to expand...

THANK YOU. Louder for the dumbfucks in the back.
 
Southern Chicken said:
NO, I am saying the opposite. OLC opinion is a policy governing DOJ employees. It isnt the LAW. Mueller had the legal power to challenge the policy for criminal behavior. HE DIDNT! He was commission to submit a report to traditional prosecution or declination decision. There isn't anything in the Constitution that prevents indicting a sitting president. There isnt a Supreme court opinion that prevents it. If so, please provide the source.
Click to expand...

You do realize you are trying to argue with a mental retard right? That dipshit is immune from facts, reality or sanity. JUST SAYING.
 
Let’s try to dumb this down as much as possible so that you morons can grasp the concept.

1. From the get go, Mueller’s team, based on the OLS policy that Trump would not/could not be indicted, that no criminal charges would be brought, DESPITE any evidence that indicated criminal conduct occurred. (Have I lost you yet?)
2. So, they decided AGAINST using an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that Trump engaged in criminal conduct. In other words, they were merely in an investigative mode, not a prosecutorial one. (This is probably where you got lost)
3. Additionally, fairness doctrine dictates that no person be accused of a crime if they cannot use the trial process to adjudicate the accusation. A prosecutor’s judgement that crimes were committed, yet no avenue exists for the accused, denies that opportunity. (Now you’re TOTALLY confused)
4. However, after the investigation, if the team found NO evidence of obstruction, they stated that they would have said so. They did not say so. (Your moronic heads are spinning now, aren’t they?)
5. Because of #4, even though there was no conclusion re: criminal conduct, he was NOT exonerated, either. Why no exoneration? Because they indicated THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO. (Now, have a literate 10 year old explain this dumb downed version for you)
 
LV426 said:
OLC policy can only be challenged in court.

How would Mueller have challenged the OLC policy, legally speaking?
Click to expand...

"Special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So respectfully, Director, you didn't follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, "Write a confidential report about decisions reached." Nowhere in here does it say, "Write a report about decisions that weren't reached."

The AG wouldnt have a choice but to submit the report to Congress (both sides).

MUELLER chose NOT to make a decision.
 
For the leftist twits on the forum; if the OLC prevented Mueller from making a prosecutorial decision, then there was no need for the SC. Morons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top