5 ms·

Innocent until proven guilty is a good standard. They couldn't prove any guilt, therefore he is considered innocent.

falcolas 7y ago
Innocent until proven guilty is important for a justice system. But by the same token the lack of a conviction is not proof of innocence. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Being unable to, for example, convict someone of a robbery doesn't mean they didn't commit the robbery; it may just mean that the evidence was improperly collected by the police.
- bufferoverflow 7y ago
  You're absolutely right. But since there's no evidence, we can't label someone guilty, like the mass media have been doing for years now. /I'm not even a fan of Trump./
  - falcolas 7y ago
    Perhaps I'm reading the doc wrong, but I'm not seeing that there's an absence of evidence, but that the justice department is not the correct venue to evaluate and act upon the evidence which was found.
dragontamer 7y ago
The Justice Department innately cannot prosecute the President, because the President can always fire people as the case is made. (Edit: Also President can theoretically pardon himself) The Justice Department (and the Attorney General) serves at behest the President. It is Congress's duty to prosecute the President through impeachment proceedings. At best, Muller's report should be seen as a gathering of evidence for a potential impeachment process. As such, it is very important for Congress to read over the details of this report, and decide if the level of Obstruction here rises to impeachment levels. (Remember: President Bill Clinton was impeached on Obstruction of Justice. It wasn't illegal to have sex with his intern, it was illegal for him to cover-up the fact). In either case: there won't be any removal of Mr. Trump from office. Democrats control the house, but Republicans control the Senate. The impeachment of Nixon only really happened because Democrats controlled both sides. The House can technically impeach (just as Bill Clinton was technically impeached), but the (Republican controlled) Senate can just sit around and do nothing about it. Still, its important for Congress to go through the process, even if its a foregone conclusion.
- nsxwolf 7y ago
  Nixon wasn't impeached. We can only speculate as to the outcome if he had been.
  - Zigurd 7y ago
    Bill Clinton was impeached by the House and tried in the Senate for obstruction and lying to a grand jury. The case was too weak. It didn't work out well. I don't recall any related prosecutions or indictments. So that's a pretty big difference. Several guilty pleas. Several ongoing investigations. A couple trials coming up... I was aware enough of the news to follow Watergate. Trump's corruption looks to me to be worse than Watergate. Firing Comey and then telling McGhan to fire Mueller is a slow-motion Saturday Night Massacre by itself, and that's just scratching the surface. Nixon was never a national security threat except for being drunk off his ass.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The Justice Department innately cannot prosecute the President, That theory is widely disputed. > It is Congress's duty to prosecute the President through impeachment proceedings. It is Congress’ duty and role to do that for all civil officers of the United States; this is not exclusive of criminal prosecution. Impeachment is a separate, not substitute, process which serves to protect the United States from the unique and special harms of wrongdoers in office. > The impeachment of Nixon only really happened because Democrats controlled both sides. The impeachment of Nixon did not, in fact, happen at all—Andrew Johnson and Clinton are the only Presidents to have been impeached—though both it and conviction likely would have (IIRC, whip counts in both houses were part of the reason for the resignation) had Nixon not resigned.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    > That theory is widely disputed. Fair point. But it was accepted by the Muller Report, and therefore Muller decided to not even TRY to prosecute Mr. Trump. (See the introduction of Volume II of the report). Perhaps one day, the theory will be tested. But for now, Muller didn't even want to test that theory. He moved forward assuming it was true.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zzzeek 7y ago
impeachment has a lower standard than criminal charges so congress must decide this question
coryfklein 7y ago
It's not a question of, "Is this person a criminal and needs to go to jail," the question in this case is, "Is this a person worthy of being our head of state and representing our country?" Shrug, every day that goes by I wonder if the man isn't a good representative of the majority of my country and I just run in non-representative circles.

Innocent until proven guilty is important for a justice system. But by the same token the lack of a conviction is not proof of innocence. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Being unable to, for example, convict someone of a robbery doesn't mean they didn't commit the robbery; it may just mean that the evidence was improperly collected by the police.

bufferoverflow 7y ago
You're absolutely right. But since there's no evidence, we can't label someone guilty, like the mass media have been doing for years now. /I'm not even a fan of Trump./
- falcolas 7y ago
  Perhaps I'm reading the doc wrong, but I'm not seeing that there's an absence of evidence, but that the justice department is not the correct venue to evaluate and act upon the evidence which was found.

dragontamer 7y ago

The Justice Department innately cannot prosecute the President, because the President can always fire people as the case is made. (Edit: Also President can theoretically pardon himself) The Justice Department (and the Attorney General) serves at behest the President. It is Congress's duty to prosecute the President through impeachment proceedings. At best, Muller's report should be seen as a gathering of evidence for a potential impeachment process. As such, it is very important for Congress to read over the details of this report, and decide if the level of Obstruction here rises to impeachment levels. (Remember: President Bill Clinton was impeached on Obstruction of Justice. It wasn't illegal to have sex with his intern, it was illegal for him to cover-up the fact). In either case: there won't be any removal of Mr. Trump from office. Democrats control the house, but Republicans control the Senate. The impeachment of Nixon only really happened because Democrats controlled both sides. The House can technically impeach (just as Bill Clinton was technically impeached), but the (Republican controlled) Senate can just sit around and do nothing about it. Still, its important for Congress to go through the process, even if its a foregone conclusion.

nsxwolf 7y ago
Nixon wasn't impeached. We can only speculate as to the outcome if he had been.
- Zigurd 7y ago
  Bill Clinton was impeached by the House and tried in the Senate for obstruction and lying to a grand jury. The case was too weak. It didn't work out well. I don't recall any related prosecutions or indictments. So that's a pretty big difference. Several guilty pleas. Several ongoing investigations. A couple trials coming up... I was aware enough of the news to follow Watergate. Trump's corruption looks to me to be worse than Watergate. Firing Comey and then telling McGhan to fire Mueller is a slow-motion Saturday Night Massacre by itself, and that's just scratching the surface. Nixon was never a national security threat except for being drunk off his ass.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The Justice Department innately cannot prosecute the President, That theory is widely disputed. > It is Congress's duty to prosecute the President through impeachment proceedings. It is Congress’ duty and role to do that for all civil officers of the United States; this is not exclusive of criminal prosecution. Impeachment is a separate, not substitute, process which serves to protect the United States from the unique and special harms of wrongdoers in office. > The impeachment of Nixon only really happened because Democrats controlled both sides. The impeachment of Nixon did not, in fact, happen at all—Andrew Johnson and Clinton are the only Presidents to have been impeached—though both it and conviction likely would have (IIRC, whip counts in both houses were part of the reason for the resignation) had Nixon not resigned.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  > That theory is widely disputed. Fair point. But it was accepted by the Muller Report, and therefore Muller decided to not even TRY to prosecute Mr. Trump. (See the introduction of Volume II of the report). Perhaps one day, the theory will be tested. But for now, Muller didn't even want to test that theory. He moved forward assuming it was true.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

zzzeek 7y ago

impeachment has a lower standard than criminal charges so congress must decide this question

coryfklein 7y ago

It's not a question of, "Is this person a criminal and needs to go to jail," the question in this case is, "Is this a person worthy of being our head of state and representing our country?" Shrug, every day that goes by I wonder if the man isn't a good representative of the majority of my country and I just run in non-representative circles.