nat4900
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 42,021
- 5,964
- 1,870
- Banned
- #1
By now we have all grown familiar with the DOJ policy that places a president ABOVE the law since that sitting president cannot be indicted....dictated by the same DOJ policy.
So, to a limited extent, Mueller's report could be interpreted as a waste of time and money since Mueller was under the jurisdiction of the DOJ and....de facto.......Mueller could never indict Trump.
So, the rationale goes like this (and this rationale's paradox is actually backed by several legal scholars.)
Since a sitting president cannot be indicted, finding all sorts of MISDEED places that sitting president in a situation that warrants he or she defending these misdeeds......but since he cannot be indicted, a trial is out of the question (until out of office)....and if a trial is out of the question, then the "poor baby" cannot defend himself....and that would be "unfair."
So, how can then Mueller's findings be better interpreted???
Simple......Mueller's ultimate intent is to outline the facts yielded by his investigation.
These facts, then, are NOT for the DOJ to review since, as already stated, a president REGARDLESS of these facts......cannot be charged while a president is in office.
Then, common sense would dictate, the whole affair is by definition NOT a legal or prosecutorial one, BUT a POLITICAL one to sort out.
So, the remaining questions we should ask ourselves are these:
Since the DOJ is hamstrung by its own policy....why the hell should Barr be acting as the judicial absolver?
...and since the affair may indeed be just "political," why is everybody bitching that Congress is taking over in pursuing that elusive justice?
If we're not a nation based on democratic precepts.......never mind all of the above
So, to a limited extent, Mueller's report could be interpreted as a waste of time and money since Mueller was under the jurisdiction of the DOJ and....de facto.......Mueller could never indict Trump.
So, the rationale goes like this (and this rationale's paradox is actually backed by several legal scholars.)
Since a sitting president cannot be indicted, finding all sorts of MISDEED places that sitting president in a situation that warrants he or she defending these misdeeds......but since he cannot be indicted, a trial is out of the question (until out of office)....and if a trial is out of the question, then the "poor baby" cannot defend himself....and that would be "unfair."
So, how can then Mueller's findings be better interpreted???
Simple......Mueller's ultimate intent is to outline the facts yielded by his investigation.
These facts, then, are NOT for the DOJ to review since, as already stated, a president REGARDLESS of these facts......cannot be charged while a president is in office.
Then, common sense would dictate, the whole affair is by definition NOT a legal or prosecutorial one, BUT a POLITICAL one to sort out.
So, the remaining questions we should ask ourselves are these:
Since the DOJ is hamstrung by its own policy....why the hell should Barr be acting as the judicial absolver?
...and since the affair may indeed be just "political," why is everybody bitching that Congress is taking over in pursuing that elusive justice?
If we're not a nation based on democratic precepts.......never mind all of the above
