world

Former U.S. deputy attorney general: If Trump was not president, he would be indicted

50 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

50 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Anyone with an elementary understanding of obstruction of justice knows Trump would be under indictment for obstruction if he weren't president.

14 ( +19 / -5 )

Oh, the Trumpets aren't going to like this one. No no no, they really won't like it. It points out the fact that the president has done criminal actions, and is only protected by the fact he is president. They'll fall back on their position that legality equals morality, and therefore he's not morally culpable of anything wrong, since he's not being legally prosecuted for it.

But this clearly shows that he is morally corrupt, that he is a criminal. This is beyond all reasonable doubt. And it shows that the American system is broken, not only does it protect a criminal, but it puts him in charge of the nation and gives him free reign to do whatever he wants, since he cannot be prosecuted.

Complete and absolute power. Any dictator smiles.

12 ( +17 / -5 )

Sally Yates, run for office, any office. If I can vote for you I will. We need more elected officials who stand up for the rule of law and have the courage of their convictions.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

...if Donald Trump were not president, he would have been indicted on obstruction charges...

Kind of a catch 22.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yep. The only option I can see is for the Dems to get a 50 yr old presidential candidate who is centrist.

Here's hoping they get someone on the ballot like that. I fear it is impossible with the current Democratic party being so far left, so we'll be stuck with 4 more yrs.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Who cares what Sally Yates says, she was quickly fired for insubordination when she opposed Trump on the travel restriction order from Muslim-majority countries with a high risk of infiltration by terrorists.

What does Mueller have to say about this?

-15 ( +4 / -19 )

Who cares what Sally Yates says, she was quickly fired for insubordination when she opposed Trump on the travel restriction order from Muslim-majority countries with a high risk of infiltration by terrorists. 

She is a lawyer so may have a bit more knowledge than you.

What does Mueller have to say about this?

He said its congress' job to pursue the obstruction charges. Didntbyou read his report? Oh, that's correct, rightists don't read, they listen to Fox "News" and Alex Jones.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Fired by Trump. Unmasked people for partisan politics. Speaking of indictments, there will be one with her name on it.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

And Sally Yates clearly abused her position if she prosecuted people for obstruction on “far, far less evidence”. Abuse of power.

who were these people, were they found guilty and what happened to them after that?

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

Fired by Trump. Unmasked people for partisan politics. Speaking of indictments, there will be one with her name on it.

It's never long before a Trumpophile takes a deep dive into conspiracy theories.

When's Hillary's indictment coming?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

And Sally Yates clearly abused her position if she prosecuted people for obstruction on “far, far less evidence”. Abuse of power.

This is not a logical inference from the evidence against Donny. The logical inference is that he needs to be prosecuted.

Its hilarious that Trumpophiles think enforcing the rule of law is abuse of power. You all crack me up.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

“And Sally Yates clearly abused her position if she prosecuted people for obstruction on “far, far less evidence”. Abuse of power.”

What do you base this argument upon? Do you have any evidence to support this theory?

The point Sally Yates was trying to make was that Trump committed acts of obstruction of justice so frequently and on a scale so large that they paled in comparison to the cases she prosecuted. It does not imply that those cases did not meet the required bar for prosecution which you erroneously claim.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Who cares what Sally Yates says, she was quickly fired for insubordination when she opposed Trump on the travel restriction order from Muslim-majority countries

She was fired because she instructed the Justice Department not to defend Trump's executive order, which she properly concluded was neither constitutional nor defensible in court. Yates' conclusion was later upheld. Federal courts blocked the order, and the two Stephens (Goebbels-Miller and Bannon) had to go back to the drawing board to come up with a ban that was less explicitly discriminatory.

Yates was following the law. Trump was not.

Yates is once again pointing out Trump's lawlessness, and she is once again correct.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

What does Mueller have to say about this?

He said its congress' job to pursue the obstruction charges

He also didn't recomend any indictments on the obstruction charges. You really should try to get over Hillary's loss at this point.

When's Hillary's indictment coming?

It can't come soon enough. You actually don't think she should be indicted, do you?

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Nice word twisting. Yates said she prosecuted people with far, far less evidence than Mueller found.

Yet Mueller didn’t prosecute. So Yates either has bad judgment or is used to abusing power to prosecute people with little evidence.

-13 ( +3 / -16 )

After Comey, Yates, McCabe and others are handled first. Do you really think we are going to just forget about what “your team” did?

When's Hillary's indictment coming?

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

Yet Mueller didn’t prosecute

Perhaps it's because of this...

the Republican president was shielded by department guidelines that a sitting president should not be indicted.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Yates was fired as she refused to do Trump's bidding when it ran against the law. That is all. Barr had better be careful: a reckoning is coming.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Yates was fired as she refused to do Trump's bidding when it ran against the law.

No, it did not and if you disagree with the President that’s your prerogative, but if you don’t like an order, then leave, put in your resignation immediately if you feel like you need to disobey, doesn’t matter who the President is

That is all. Barr had better be careful: a reckoning is coming.

From whom? Lol

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

Love how all liberals using this “can’t indict a sitting president” line. After the report found not enough evidence to indict anyway.

Do you really think a “guideline” would stop Mueller from indicting if he found evidence?

then why bother even investigate someone you know you can’t indict? Partisan politics.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Love how all liberals using this “can’t indict a sitting president” line. After the report found not enough evidence to indict anyway.

Nowhere in the report did Mueller write that.

Do you really think a “guideline” would stop Mueller from indicting if he found evidence?

What I think is irrelevant. reading the Mueller report makes it clear he did find evidence of obstruction.

then why bother even investigate someone you know you can’t indict? Partisan politics.

lolz A Republican investigating a Republican isn't partisan. But, I get what you're saying, the president is above the law. Long live King Donny! ;)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Love how all liberals using this “can’t indict a sitting president” line. After the report found not enough evidence to indict anyway.

Do you really think a “guideline” would stop Mueller from indicting if he found evidence? 

then why bother even investigate someone you know you can’t indict? Partisan politics.

The problem is, they keep shooting and they keep missing and that only makes him stronger because now and more than ever people can see, his supporters as well as some people that may not like him that there is a conscious effort to do everything in the Democrats power to get rid of this President and it’s just not working out the way the Dems want it to. Every single dirty tactic has failed and even the giant mega witch hunt proved to be a dud.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Ok, so you just want to bash Trump ans have a one-sided bashing feast?

No not at all. Defend him if you can. What Hillary did or does or should do or should get isn't a defense of Trump.

So if you are a Trump supporter, you have then sit and agree with the haters and not bring in other historical viewpoints and facts in order to please the haters? Doesn’t seem much like a fair discussion does it?

Yes it does. He is the subject. If you can't defend him, that's not his opposition's fault.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Why everybody picks on trump? He was fairly elected. If that is how he operates, then that is how Americans operate. Leave the guy alone. Attacking and insulting him is an attack on democracy and every single American voter. Posters never criticize (corruption) Abe, schools, vet universities etc. leave trump alone. Clinton lost. Lost. Accept it. I bet you love watching The Godfather movie or Arnold blasting away people. Trump is just that. No more, no less. Respect him. He is the democratically elected leader of the world.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Nowhere in the report did Mueller write that. 

He’s not indicted, he’s not in prison, so either he’s a criminal or he’s not, the report doesn’t state that. The Dems have nothing, absolutely nothing.

What I think is irrelevant. reading the Mueller report makes it clear he did find evidence of obstruction.

And yet there wasn’t enough evidence to charge him, so either he’s guilty or he’s not. Apparently, not.

lolz A Republican investigating a Republican isn't partisan.

Comey claims he’s a Republican, but he wants and encourages people to vote Democrat, that says a lot about his political leanings, don’t come to me with that. Lol

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

No not at all. Defend him if you can. What Hillary did or does or should do or should get isn't a defense of Trump.

Oh, please, you do not control what people can or cannot say. Why liberals always think they can’t make people say or think the way THEY want them to think.

Yes it does. He is the subject. If you can't defend him, that's not his opposition's fault.

I did and now I’m giving an opposing point of view.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Don’t need to write anything. Mueller didn’t indict so anything that was written is irrelevant and should not have even been written.

You indict and prove or you are quiet. No middle ground to “almost” prosecute someone for “almost” doing something.

If you knew you couldn’t indict why did you all tell us Trump would be impeached and jailed. You just wasted our time if you know claim you “knew” all this and knew he couldn’t be indicted.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

the whole Mueller investigation was based on the biased Steele dossier 

False. The whole thing started with the George Papadopoulos and Wikileaks issue in July, 2016, five months before the FBI knew anything about the Steele dossier. This fact is even attested in lickspittle Devin Nunes' "memo", and yet Trumpsters & Friends continue to spout falsehoods about the origin of the Mueller investigation. Is there any reason to believe that the Trumpiverse has any shred of credibility or integrity?

Keep digging your own hole. Facts are facts, including the one that President Donald J. Trump on multiple occasions obstructed an ongoing investigation, and the one that obstruction of justice does not necessitate the existence of an underlying crime (as lickspittle AG Barr falsely asserts).

if you are a Trump supporter, you have then sit and agree with the haters and not bring in other historical viewpoints and facts in order to please the haters?

Go ahead and present facts. Nobody's stopping you. But that's not what you've been doing. Instead, it's been a steady stream of falsehoods, straw men, red herrings, and false equivalences.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Oh, please, you do not control what people can or cannot say. Why liberals always think they can’t make people say or think the way THEY want them to think.

Say what you want if it defends him. Saying "Hillary did this that and the next thing" doesn't.

I did and now I’m giving an opposing point of view.

You didn't defend him or give an opposing point of view about what he did. You just complained about Hillary.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Your binary view of the justice system is completely incorrect.

Not at all. It’s on point. What do the Democrats have? Put the BS aside? They have nothing, we all know this, Democrats know this, this is only about trying to wound Trump as much as they can for 2020 nothing more. They know Mueller was their ace in the hole and that went completely sour on them. Now they want to make another mocked fishing expedition with absolutely nothing and let’s not forget, they completely forgot about their constituents. In their hatred for Trump and their deep obsession with tying to get him kicked out of office is ruining their chances at getting the WH.

False duality. You are saying that people not in prison are not criminals. Then, Hillary and Podesta are not criminals because they are not in prison.

Then the president is not a criminal either.

This isn't how it works. By this logic, Hillary is clean as a whistle.

Trump is as well. No orange jumpsuits.

Nemui is trying to control what people are saying, they are simply calling Trumpophiles out for constantly providing irrelevant responses. Remember the lessons you were receiving yesterday about relevance? Didn't think so.

And we call out the liberals that give zero evidence or empty platitudes of something that will never happen.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

you do not control what people can or cannot say. Why liberals always think they can’t make people say or think the way THEY want them to think.

It's true that one should not control what other people can or cannot say. You just might have problems being taken seriously in adult conversation if you can't back up your assertions with evidence or logical reasoning.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

They have nothing, we all know this, Democrats know this, this is only about trying to wound Trump as much as they can for 2020 nothing more. They know Mueller was their ace in the hole and that went completely sour on them. Now they want to make another mocked fishing expedition with absolutely nothing and let’s not forget, they completely forgot about their constituents. In their hatred for Trump and their deep obsession with tying to get him kicked out of office is ruining their chances at getting the WH.

None of this is grounded in evidence.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Not yet...

Not ever. You guys keep firing and keep missing.

The American people have a report that says Trump officials were meeting with Russians and lying about it, Trump lied, and he tried to obstruct justice on 10 times... Worse than Nixon..

At the same time but I couldn’t prove that there was any intent on trumps part just saw you called me and to ask the Russians to help them with this campaign, no proof to that in no way to prove that there was any intent, so there was no way to charge him therefore he is either guilty or not and since he’s not in prison one can assume with all certainty he is not guilty.

Comey is a Republican, Mueller is a Republican, Rosenstein who appointed Mueller is a Republican...

Which means absolutely nothing to the deep state establishment, but nice try. Comey, vote Democrat, his entire family are Hillary supporters, Yeah, ok....lol

Trump was a Democrat for most of his life and has given more money to Democrats than Repubs, who said this in 2012: “Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman,” he told Greta Van Susteren. “I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. "

Thank you you put my point for me, political titles don’t matter. Than you for making that point for me, Lincoln.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

You guys sure love your word play.

the words from Mueller are clear. No collusion and no indictments.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Bingo! I do hope liberals take you sound advice, for once I totally agree with you, Plastic.

I'm glad you agree with him. Maybe you'll change your ways.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

No collusion and no indictments.

But definitely obstruction.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

GoodlucktoyouToday 12:20 pm JST

Trump is just that. No more, no less. Respect him. He is the democratically elected leader of the world

I know you're trolling, but man that one was good ! Democratically elected leader of the world ! You made my day.

The truth is that the US is becoming more irrelevant day by day.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Where does the Mueller report say “definitely obstruction”? And why aren’t you angry at him instead of Trump then?

He decided not to indict Trump when there was definitely proof? Your prosecutor savior failed you.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

obstruction of justice. Of an investigation that was given 2 years to complete, whose leader was not fired, that was given an unlimited budget, and no executive privilege claimed, yet found nothing.

so how exactly was it obstructed?

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Ok ok... I should say... definitely not exoneration. Happy now?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Where does the Mueller report say “definitely obstruction”? 

Lolz Where did Mueller say no collusion? Hint: He didn't.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

so how exactly was it obstructed?

Lolz The report lays out exactly how. Isn't it amazing how its difficult to conduct an investigation when the president obstructs. Its almost like obstruction is a crime or something.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Nothing like being above the law. Trump runs the US Justice Department and will never be prosecuted as long as he is President. The only hope is impeachment but his Republicans will never see that justice is done. I am surprised they did not pass an enabling act when they controlled Congress. Now the US Senate is packing the courts with Trump cronies. I think the US Republic is coming to its conclusion.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Sally Yates?

You mean the same Sally Yates who served under Eric “Obama’s wingman” Holder and Loretta “Bill Clinton and I discussed grandchildren while meeting by coincidence at an airport in Phoenix - I swear!” Lynch?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Trump, a disgrace for United States and a danger for the world...

1 ( +4 / -3 )

When you ask a Obama appointment what there opinion on a Trump issue is, the response of course is anti Trump - like most things that come from the Democrat side, "take it with a grain of salt".

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Lolz Where did Mueller say no collusion? Hint: He didn't.

True, but the report did say the investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign 'coordinated' with the Russian government in election interference. It specifically avoided the term "collusion" as it has no legal meaning. It considered "coordination" as more relevant within the framework of conspiracy law.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

when she opposed Trump on the travel restriction order from Muslim-majority countries with a high risk of infiltration by terrorists.

oh you mean like Saudi Arabia!? oh forgot theyre not on a ban list, but they have oil so AMerican lives dont matter in this instance.

What does Mueller have to say about this? why would Mueller care shes not being investigated for obstruction, and why would Trumptards care!? they didnt care what Mueller said , as he was just a corrupt FBI agent until he found no collusion on Trump. Seriously Trumptards flip flop around more than a fish out of water

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

 "take it with a grain of salt".

there is no grain of salt when you obstruct justice, its breaking US law. Trumptards have no problem with the POTUS breaking US law as long as he fits their agenda.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I did and now I’m giving an opposing point of view.

there is no opposing opinion, the facts are Mueller found plenty of evidence of obstruction but choose not to indict because he cant do that to a sitting POTUS, he left that up to congress. Its clear congress wont do it so itll be up to the AMerican voters next year if they've had enough of this lies , deceit and obstruction or they want more of the same

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites