The Putin - Trump Controversy: Here to Stay - Links between Trump and Russia are being officially investigated by the FBI

[Cope]

That's true, you didn't even really try. You just said you find it vague and inconclusive and and that Trump was 'frustrated'.

Yes, thanks for conceding that I didn't try to disprove the evidence of the report. Good job?

Because as mentioned above your specific criticisms amount to "it's all a bit vague" despite the evidence to the contrary and I can't exactly press you to think logically if you choose not to.

The only person you can't press to think logically is yourself. Despite blathering on about how your subjective interpretation of the Mueller report is irrefutably true (whilst simultaneously contradicting yourself by acknowledging the existence of plausible alternatives to your hypotheses) you still haven't shown, beyond a reasonable doubt (or anywhere close to that frankly) that Trump is guilty of anything.

Yeah, except not really. If I say 1,000 doctors think smoking is bad for you or 1,000 scientists think climate change is real based on their knowledge and experience it's quite different than using 1,000 random people.

Yeah, appealing to authority isn't an argument either. Even if it were, arguing that "if only Trump hadn't been president we could have charged him with attempting to obstruct, while president, an investigation into the circumstances surrounding his acquisition of the presidency" is actually just amusing. Almost, dare I say, as amusing as your attempt to frame your argument as though it were as water tight as the claim that smoking has negative health implications.

[Love Mountain]

The report did not establish that the president had conspired, either personally or through contacts, with the Russian government to undermine the 2016 election. End of discussion.

No, not end of discussion. A failed attempt to commit a conspiracy does not by itself end investigation, nor does it imply that no crime was committed in an attempt to commit conspiracy. Your conclusion of the report's contents are as childish as the President who claimed it exonerated him.

Intent which hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt one way or another.

Intent wasn't proven or even conclusively discussed because the report made it painfully clear it won't be doing that. Not because intent wasn't possible to prove.

Mueller didn't just arbitrarily refuse to make definitive conclusions: he didn't make them because he didn't have enough evidence to.

That's not why he didn't make definitive conclusions. I already stated it several times, I even quoted the relevant passage in the report. Mueller didn't reach a definitive conclusion because he did not believe that OLC regulations allowed him to. In layman's terms, Mueller is directly under the Presiden't chain of command as part of the Justice department. It doesn't take a genius to see what kind of issue this creates, substantiated by the existence of the OLC literature on this particular matter.

The allegation which we were discussing - that Trump had attempted to dissolve the SC - was made by a single source. The fact that the source's subsequent behaviour didn't expose his claim as being untruthful doesn't somehow elevate his claims to a point beyond legitimate scepticism.

Single source? There were several events and many people that had to be questioned, verified, and observed. As seen clearly under Volume 2, Section E, The President's Efforts to remove the special council, which are then further discussed in Section F, The President's Efforts to curtail the Special Council Investigation. Not only do the subsequent events, virtually all of them, includingf how the new AG William Barr handled the matter, exposes extremely suspicious behavior and scrutiny on the matter.

Fact is, President Donald Trump isn't given the benefit of a doubt that fits under "legitimate asceticism" of the investigation's findings. He's been given a mile-sized berth and every possible alternative explanation to his behavior. And even at that point, the Mueller Report repeatedly states that there is significant evidence to show that the President's actions were indeed done with the worst intent possible. That's putting it politely. The version that most Trump supporters would understand is that a kid was caught driving with an opened cold beer in his hands, and he wasn't buying it for his dad.

The fact that the report couldn't be used as a basis for criminal prosecution so long as Trump remains president didn't disallow Mueller from reaching an unambiguous conclusion. He wasn't obliged to acknowledge the existence of alternative possibilities.

What disallows Mueller from reaching an unambiguous conclusion was his clear and stated intent to avoid doing so due to the policy of the justice department. This is why the report is so careful to avoid any condemnation. Not because a condemnation was impossible to reach.

[Basil II the B.S]

Do libs think that double-teaming and selective quoting is a way of winning arguments? Because that's what I'm seeing here.

[Cope]

Do libs think that double-teaming and selective quoting is a way of winning arguments? Because that's what I'm seeing here.

A certain contingent of the liberal elite sees impeachment as a means through which a procedural coup can be performed. That's pretty much all there is to it. Within days of Trump's election, they were seeking to find theories under which he could be removed and they still haven't stopped.

[Basil II the B.S]

Indeed. That's what I've been saying from the beginning. Hell, even Strok messages confirm it.

It's in shambles anyway. Plenty of their own commentators don't believe it anymore. Mueller was supposed to be a tough guy who'd find every connection between Trump and Russia. Turns out he didn't find anything and he's ready for retirement.

[Cope]

No, not end of discussion. A failed attempt to commit a conspiracy does not by itself end investigation, nor does it imply that no crime was committed in an attempt to commit conspiracy. Your conclusion of the report's contents are as childish as the President who claimed it exonerated him.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Even the propagandist Schiff who made the ludicrous claim that the Kremlin's opposition to the Clinton campaign constituted "the most serious attack on our [American] democracy by a foreign power in our [American] history" was forced to concede that the Mueller team "was not able to establish each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, so not a provable crime in any event."

Intent wasn't proven or even conclusively discussed because the report made it painfully clear it won't be doing that. Not because intent wasn't possible to prove.

I don't care what is "possible" to prove: I care what has been proven - which doesn't include either the allegation that Trump conspired with Moscow or that he "obstructed justice".

That's not why he didn't make definitive conclusions. I already stated it several times, I even quoted the relevant passage in the report. Mueller didn't reach a definitive conclusion because he did not believe that OLC regulations allowed him to. In layman's terms, Mueller is directly under the Presiden't chain of command as part of the Justice department. It doesn't take a genius to see what kind of issue this creates, substantiated by the existence of the OLC literature on this particular matter.

1. You can state your opinion till the cows come home, that doesn't make it factual.
2. I do not see that you "quoted" any "relevant passage" with regard to the report's alleged unwillingness to find, if not conclusively, then more conclusively, against Trump.

Now let's look at what Mueller actually stated when he gave testimony:

Jerrold Nadler: Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you not not publicly state that in your report or here today?
Mueller: Well I would say you could - the statement would be to - that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.

So as we can see here, nowhere does Mueller say that he couldn't reach a conclusion because it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. What he states is that at no point was he willing to use the report to indict the president.

Single source? There were several events and many people that had to be questioned, verified, and observed. As seen clearly under Volume 2, Section E, The President's Efforts to remove the special council, which are then further discussed in Section F, The President's Efforts to curtail the Special Council Investigation. Not only do the subsequent events, virtually all of them, includingf how the new AG William Barr handled the matter, exposes

extremely suspicious behavior and scrutiny on the matter.

This was already answered previously.

Fact is, President Donald Trump isn't given the benefit of a doubt that fits under "legitimate asceticism" of the investigation's findings. He's been given a mile-sized berth and every possible alternative explanation to his behavior. And even at that point, the Mueller Report repeatedly states that there is significant evidence to show that the President's actions were indeed done with the worst intent possible. That's putting it politely. The version that most Trump supporters would understand is that a kid was caught driving with an opened cold beer in his hands, and he wasn't buying it for his dad.

Mueller entertaining and acknowledging a variety of alternatives that don't conform with what you want the truth to be isn't synonymous with to Trump being given "a mile-sized berth".

What disallows Mueller from reaching an unambiguous conclusion was his clear and stated intent to avoid doing so due to the policy of the justice department. This is why the report is so careful to avoid any condemnation. Not because a condemnation was impossible to reach.

Already answered this.

[Common Soldier]

While pulling for impeachment may be considered the most ethical or moral action by Democrats in order to push their point, I don't know if it is going to have the desired effect. Here are the problems right now.

1. It is very clear that Republicans are not convinced that this is worth impeaching Trump for. Even worse, they consider the investigation a partisan attack with no legitimate reason to justify it. Impeachment would probably push Republicans over the edge in terms of their perception that the Democrats are out to get them, and that the institutions that are supposed to preserve democracy are actually tools that will be utilized to threaten their power.

2. You are probably going to just motivate Trump's base and mobilize them even further to be politically active than motivate their own base. Most informed Democratic voters understand the futility of pursuing impeachment, while Trump voters will be able to use this as motivation for a 2020 election. It creates the perception that Trump is truly shaking the government up, and that his presence are making the elites distraught.

The people who voted for Trump the first time are not likely to be persuaded by any of these unprovrn allegations. Mueller didn't prove any of the charges, and in this country the principal is a person is innocent until proven guilty (unless your Mueller, and it is someone you don't like). There are plenty of reasons to voted against Trump, but thd unproven is Russian allegations is not one of them, and at to keep harping on it when they had their chance to prove the allegations and failed. Even the talk of impeachment is just fantasy St this point, with the Republican still controlling the Senate at this it will never happen. What it all reflects is Democrat fantasy wishes, not reality.

With

[Gaidin]

A certain contingent of the liberal elite sees impeachment as a means through which a procedural coup can be performed. That's pretty much all there is to it. Within days of Trump's election, they were seeking to find theories under which he could be removed and they still haven't stopped.

Well, the inanity of Impeachment being a coup aside, as it's a constitutionally granted power. The Democrats actually in power don't want Impeachment as they're not performing anything resembling their own investigation. They're doing a great job slow-walking any and all efforts to get their own information.

[tgoodenow]

Well, the inanity of Impeachment being a coup aside, as it's a constitutionally granted power. The Democrats actually in power don't want Impeachment as they're not performing anything resembling their own investigation. They're doing a great job slow-walking any and all efforts to get their own information.

I think Pelosi playing both sides of the impeachment plan is going to backfire, especially as the number of Democrat candidates continue to shrink. Bernie Sanders will try to play his support for impeachment vs Biden's. Her lack of decisiveness will only encourage the intraparty war of the Democrats.

[Gaidin]

I think Pelosi playing both sides of the impeachment plan is going to backfire, especially as the number of Democrat candidates continue to shrink.

Well, if you really think Pence is a better political option and there's no smoking gun that even these days and these political situations the Republican Party couldn't ignore. Which goes again to say, ep1c's "coup" wording is downright inane. Impeachment isn't a coup. It's not designed to be. It's Legislative check on the Executive AND Judicial Power(check your history, plenty of judges impeached and thrown out on their asses, plenty of judges impeached and found not guilty). All it would do is put Pence in office. Not put the Democrats in power of the Executive. Coup my ass. But until there's a smoking gun all it is is a political dance. But they're not even investigating. And until they're investigating, they have no chance of finding a smoking gun. And until they stop slow-walking their efforts, they're not investigating.

So really, come back to me when they're actually doing something other than talking loudly.

[tgoodenow]

Well, if you really think Pence is a better political option and there's no smoking gun that even these days and these political situations the Republican Party couldn't ignore. Which goes again to say, ep1c's "coup" wording is downright inane. Impeachment isn't a coup. It's not designed to be. It's Legislative check on the Executive AND Judicial Power(check your history, plenty of judges impeached and thrown out on their asses, plenty of judges impeached and found not guilty). All it would do is put Pence in office. Not put the Democrats in power of the Executive. Coup my ass. But until there's a smoking gun all it is is a political dance. But they're not even investigating. And until they're investigating, they have no chance of finding a smoking gun. And until they stop slow-walking their efforts, they're not investigating.

So really, come back to me when they're actually doing something other than talking loudly.

Democrats have the right to impeach if they desire, I just believe that Pelosi needs to stop playing both sides. There are definitely investigations taking place, as subpoenas are going out. She sees the situations in her party where people like Gerry Nadler are facing primaries from the left. She should’ve taken the chance after the Mueller hearings to declare that it was time to move on. Instead she’s not putting out the impeachment fire and It’s going to turn into another purity test for Joe Biden and other moderates. The same moderates that put her into power.

[Pontifex Maximus]

So Trump is guilty of nothing but the entire Russia hoax has exposed the democrats as extremely corrupt and disingenuous because they have no morals other than working as hard as possible to help fabricate reasons for impeachment.

You're fooling nobody. It's pathetic that you're still pursuing the impeachment agenda, but please don't stop. Thankfully your moronic, obsessive orange man bad theory actually adds to Trump's re-election numbers. Keep raging, please! Orange man bad! Racism! Sexism! Xenophobia! Trump is a _x_ sexist/racist/xenophobe/whateverphobe

[Love Mountain]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Even the propagandist Schiff who made the ludicrous claim that the Kremlin's opposition to the Clinton campaign constituted "the most serious attack on our [American] democracy by a foreign power in our [American] history" was forced to concede that the Mueller team "was not able to establish each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, so not a provable crime in any event."

Propagandist? Cute. You do not need to commit a conspiracy in order to commit a crime or to obstruct justice. Nor was the President or his administration cleared of conspiracy either.

I don't care what is "possible" to prove: I care what has been proven - which doesn't include either the allegation that Trump conspired with Moscow or that he "obstructed justice".

We can't know what's proven, as the Justice department cannot, or will not, charge the President. We cannot know whether the report provides enough information to start a proceeding, because Mueller refuses to say so and the Justice department is under the control of the President.

1. You can state your opinion till the cows come home, that doesn't make it factual.
2. I do not see that you "quoted" any "relevant passage" with regard to the report's alleged unwillingness to find, if not conclusively, then more conclusively, against Trump.

1. The only thing you've been doing here is stating your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence.
2. I'll help you, since you seem to have missed it the first time.

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. 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.""

You can keep ignoring it or keep trying to weasel out of it. Whatever, your business. Fact is, the Mueller report refuses to make a judgement on the information they gathered because of department policy. Not on the merit of the report.

Now let's look at what Mueller actually stated when he gave testimony:

Jerrold Nadler: Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you not not publicly state that in your report or here today?
Mueller: Well I would say you could - the statement would be to - that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.

So as we can see here, nowhere does Mueller say that he couldn't reach a conclusion because it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. What he states is that at no point was he willing to use the report to indict the president.

Mueller already said he didn't reach a conclusion. It's in the report. Nor did Mueller ever say that the report exonorates the President, nor does he say that the report does not contain sufficient information to charge the President.

[quote]This was already answered previously. [/FONT][/FONT]

It wasn't. You gave your opinion and ignored parts of the report, that I apparently didn't read.

Mueller entertaining and acknowledging a variety of alternatives that don't conform with what you want the truth to be isn't synonymous with to Trump being given "a mile-sized berth".

The report didn't judge the likeliness of the alternatives. The report did in fact give a "mile-sized berth" by refusing to state whether there is enough information to charge the President or not. Again, this is due to OLC policy.

[Cope]

Propagandist? Cute. You do not need to commit a conspiracy in order to commit a crime or to obstruct justice. Nor was the President or his administration cleared of conspiracy either.

Nothing you write here is relevant. Firstly, it is self-evident that "you do not need to commit a conspiracy in order to commit a crime or to obstruct justice", but those are the things which the president is being accused of. Secondly, innocence is assumed so the report not "clearing" him of wrong doing is meaningless.

We can't know what's proven, as the Justice department cannot, or will not, charge the President. We cannot know whether the report provides enough information to start a proceeding, because Mueller refuses to say so and the Justice department is under the control of the President.

Well apparently not even I think that the report is as useless as you do.

1. The only thing you've been doing here is stating your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The evidence is not "overwhelming". Stop lying.

2. I'll help you, since you seem to have missed it the first time.

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. 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.""

You can keep ignoring it or keep trying to weasel out of it. Whatever, your business. Fact is, the Mueller report refuses to make a judgement on the information they gathered because of department policy. Not on the merit of the report.

The only relevant point here is that the SC wasn't entitled to make a "prosecutorial judgement"; that means it wasn't able to recommend prosecution or indict the president, not that it wasn't able to draw meaningful conclusions.

Mueller already said he didn't reach a conclusion. It's in the report. Nor did Mueller ever say that the report exonorates the President, nor does he say that the report does not contain sufficient information to charge the President.

Hence the report was inconclusive and does not provide the basis for impeachment.

It wasn't. You gave your opinion and ignored parts of the report, that I apparently didn't read.

It has been answered. You just seem to think that the intent of a third party can be convincingly determined via evidence derived from a single witness.

The report didn't judge the likeliness of the alternatives.

The alternative explanations offered were supported by evidence: that means their "likeliness" was, minimally, within the range of plausibility.

The report did in fact give a "mile-sized berth" by refusing to state whether there is enough information to charge the President or not. Again, this is due to OLC policy.

So the Constitution is preventing the Democrats from "protecting" the Constitution

[Love Mountain]

Nothing you write here is relevant. Firstly, it is self-evident that "you do not need to commit a conspiracy in order to commit a crime or to obstruct justice", but those are the things which the president is being accused of. Secondly, innocence is assumed so the report not "clearing" him of wrong doing is meaningless.

The President being accused doesn't mean that his crimes are limited to those that he is being accused of. This isn't a matter of "digging until something sticks". This is a matter of finding out whether the President has been involved in serious crimes that are inappropriate for somebody in his position. The report not clearing him isn't meaningless, in fact, that's one of the sticking points behind the on-going hearings and sentiments of impeachment.

Well apparently not even I think that the report is as useless as you do.

I didn't say it was useless. In fact, I've praised it repeatedly.

The evidence is not "overwhelming". Stop lying.

I'll stop lying when you stop lying about how there is insufficient evidence. Or maybe neither of us are liars since you're just resorting to gross hyperbole.

The only relevant point here is that the SC wasn't entitled to make a "prosecutorial judgement"; that means it wasn't able to recommend prosecution or indict the president, not that it wasn't able to draw meaningful conclusions.

That's exactly what it means. And no, it doesn't mean that Mueller wasn't able to recommend prosecution. It means he refuses to even comment on the matter. Mueller's report, in short, is simply a list of evidence and things it has gathered regarding the President. It does not make any judgement or conclusion whatsoever. In fact, it even says as much.

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct...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."

So stop mincing words. You're starting to sound like a civil servant in a committee.

Hence the report was inconclusive and does not provide the basis for impeachment.

The report does provide the basis for impeachment. Absence of a conclusion or recommendation or judgement or whatever, does not mean that Congress does not have a base on which to form a cause for impeachment. The report provides plenty of evidence of serious misconduct. Not to mention that the articles for impeachment do not set out a definitive and comprehensive set of criteria. Most exemplified by the rather trivial impeachment of Bill Clinton. Trump is long past sexual deviancy.

It has been answered. You just seem to think that the intent of a third party can be convincingly determined via evidence derived from a single witness.

It hasn't, and it's not a single witness. The attempted removal of the SC involved McGahn, Rosenstein, Priebus, and god knows who else. The report detailed this thoroughly, and cited numerous witnesses. So no, it's not a single witness, numerous witnesses were used to confirm the interactions between McGahn and Trump. The article refers to this as "evidence". And yeah, considering the two-page analysis of the attempted removal of the SC, and the manner in which it was written, I don't see how any reasonable person could refers to this in any other way than, "Intent here is super-clear".

The alternative explanations offered were supported by evidence: that means their "likeliness" was, minimally, within the range of plausibility.

The range of possibilities also involves "highly unlikely", which the alternative explanations for the removal of the SC are. For the record, the alternative explanation was,

"A threshold question is whetherthe President in fact directed McGahn to have the Special
Counsel removed. After news organizations reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered
McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President publicly disputed these accounts , and
privately told McGahn that he had simply wanted McGahn to bring conflicts of interest to the
Department of Justice 's attention ."

Mueller says that there is substantial evidence to the contrary. In four parts.

1. McGahn is a credible witness.
2. Circumstantial evidence (other witnesses) confirm McGahn's side of the story.
3. The President's behavior does not support the alternative explanation.
4. The President's prior behavior and other circumstantial evidence does not support the alternative explanation.

In other words, the support for the likely intent here is extremely strong, and the alternative explanation is extremely weak. Or as the article puts it, "Intent is super-clear"

So the Constitution is preventing the Democrats from "protecting" the Constitution

This makes no sense, as the policy of the Justice department is a self-imposed limitation. The Constitution has nothing to do with this. The constitutional mechanism for policing the Executive branch are the articles of impeachment. The OLC policy is stopping Mueller from making a call to arrest his boss, something that Trump could likely counter-command anyway.

[PointOfViewGun]

So Trump is guilty of nothing but the entire Russia hoax has exposed the democrats as extremely corrupt and disingenuous because they have no morals other than working as hard as possible to help fabricate reasons for impeachment.

You're fooling nobody. It's pathetic that you're still pursuing the impeachment agenda, but please don't stop. Thankfully your moronic, obsessive orange man bad theory actually adds to Trump's re-election numbers. Keep raging, please! Orange man bad! Racism! Sexism! Xenophobia! Trump is a _x_ sexist/racist/xenophobe/whateverphobe

Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice. We know that for a fact. He will likely be put on trial after his presidency ends whether you can spin that or not.

[Cope]

The President being accused doesn't mean that his crimes are limited to those that he is being accused of. This isn't a matter of "digging until something sticks". This is a matter of finding out whether the President has been involved in serious crimes that are inappropriate for somebody in his position. The report not clearing him isn't meaningless, in fact, that's one of the sticking points behind the on-going hearings and sentiments of impeachment.

I didn't say it was useless. In fact, I've praised it repeatedly.

I'll stop lying when you stop lying about how there is insufficient evidence. Or maybe neither of us are liars since you're just resorting to gross hyperbole.

That's exactly what it means. And no, it doesn't mean that Mueller wasn't able to recommend prosecution. It means he refuses to even comment on the matter. Mueller's report, in short, is simply a list of evidence and things it has gathered regarding the President. It does not make any judgement or conclusion whatsoever. In fact, it even says as much.

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct...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."

So stop mincing words. You're starting to sound like a civil servant in a committee.

The report does provide the basis for impeachment. Absence of a conclusion or recommendation or judgement or whatever, does not mean that Congress does not have a base on which to form a cause for impeachment. The report provides plenty of evidence of serious misconduct. Not to mention that the articles for impeachment do not set out a definitive and comprehensive set of criteria. Most exemplified by the rather trivial impeachment of Bill Clinton. Trump is long past sexual deviancy.

It hasn't, and it's not a single witness. The attempted removal of the SC involved McGahn, Rosenstein, Priebus, and god knows who else. The report detailed this thoroughly, and cited numerous witnesses. So no, it's not a single witness, numerous witnesses were used to confirm the interactions between McGahn and Trump. The article refers to this as "evidence". And yeah, considering the two-page analysis of the attempted removal of the SC, and the manner in which it was written, I don't see how any reasonable person could refers to this in any other way than, "Intent here is super-clear".

The range of possibilities also involves "highly unlikely", which the alternative explanations for the removal of the SC are. For the record, the alternative explanation was,

"A threshold question is whetherthe President in fact directed McGahn to have the Special
Counsel removed. After news organizations reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered
McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President publicly disputed these accounts , and
privately told McGahn that he had simply wanted McGahn to bring conflicts of interest to the
Department of Justice 's attention ."

Mueller says that there is substantial evidence to the contrary. In four parts.

1. McGahn is a credible witness.
2. Circumstantial evidence (other witnesses) confirm McGahn's side of the story.
3. The President's behavior does not support the alternative explanation.
4. The President's prior behavior and other circumstantial evidence does not support the alternative explanation.

In other words, the support for the likely intent here is extremely strong, and the alternative explanation is extremely weak. Or as the article puts it, "Intent is super-clear"

All of these points have been answered. You are free to your own editorialized interpretation of the findings.

This makes no sense, as the policy of the Justice department is a self-imposed limitation. The Constitution has nothing to do with this. The constitutional mechanism for policing the Executive branch are the articles of impeachment. The OLC policy is stopping Mueller from making a call to arrest his boss, something that Trump could likely counter-command anyway.

It makes perfect sense. The main reason that the policy exists is because indicting a sitting president is viewed by the OCL as unconstitutional. This is because "the indictment or criminal prosecutionof a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executivebranch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." Mueller openly acknowledged this during his testimony.

[B. W.]

Another never-Trump RHINO is stepping aside and now Trump gets to appoint a new DNI. He is nominating a former prosecutor from Texas. Looks like the investigators are about to be investigated:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...elligence.html

[NorthernXY]

Do we know what Trump was up to during the September 11th attacks? We may not be able to prove he helped organize them but that doesn't mean he didn't.

[Love Mountain]

All of these points have been answered. You are free to your own editorialized interpretation of the findings.

I'm enjoying this handwaving. You do realize that's not an adequate explanation of your opinion, right? You can keep saying you already answered previous points, without actually doing it. Can't force you.

It makes perfect sense. The main reason that the policy exists is because indicting a sitting president is viewed by the OCL as unconstitutional. This is because "the indictment or criminal prosecutionof a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executivebranch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." Mueller openly acknowledged this during his testimony.

It makes no sense because the OLC and the Justice Department are not bodies recognized by the Constitution. So no, the policy literally has nothing to do with the Constitution aside from the fact that this is their interpretation of the principal-agent problem inherent to having a Justice department in the Executive branch. I.e., the justice department is under the President's chain of command, and he can theoretically order all of this to go away cording to Keith from Princeton.