Comments by "Matt Foley" (@mattfoley6082) on "Gowdy breaks down legal implications behind Mueller remarks" video.

  1. Repubs setting new low in denying all the Trump criminals indicted, convicted, and yet to be indicted and convicted.
    5
  2.  brjema1  Your stupidity hurts.
    3
  3. Mueller's statement. My comments in bold. First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. (Why preserve evidence? Among other things, it could be used to charge POTUS with a crime after leaving office.) And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. (Get it? Even if he has evidence against Trump he can't charge him with a crime. You have to be an idiot to think this means no crime was committed.) So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. (Get it? He's not saying a crime was committed and he's not saying a crime was not committed.) That is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations.
    1