Where laypeople might be getting confused is the word "indictment". In legal terms that isn't a presumption of guilt or innocence. In legal terms an "indictment" merely says that law enforcement found enough there to put in front of a grand jury. A grand jury's job also is not intended to presume guilt or innocence, but to decide if there is enough evidence there to put in front of a trial jury which does determine guilt or innocence. Grand Juries are a safeguard for the court. When used properly what they do is act as a filter to insure that a regular jury that follows will gain a determination of guilt or innocence that will be harder to dispute in being over turned or re litigated.
When the DOJ says you cannot indict a sitting president, they are ALSO not presuming guilt or innocence, but saying only congress can act as the court.
Mueller several times today said that Trump was not exonerated. And on the obstruction part of the report used the words "substantial evidence".
When assholes falsely argue " presumption of innocence" what they are missing, is that the mere act of collecting evidence isn't such. It is just a legal process to bring to a court and let the court decide. If the DOJ is going to argue that the office, regardless of whom occupies it, cannot be charged in a court, they are NOT arguing that the court cannot be congress which is what oversight means. It is why, if Nixon had not stepped down, he would have been impeached. Just like if Nixon had not been president, but broken into a rival company's business.
And what I hated about today, is the lying asshole GOP kept on trying to confuse collusion/conspiracy with obstruction.
If law enforcement asks you a question, at best you have the legal right to keep your mouth shut. But, if you go beyond that, even outside their face to face questioning, and request others do not tell the truth, or try to fire key people involved in that, THAT IS OBSTRUCTION, regardless if you are successful or not.
Mueller said as much. If any other person had done the same, that person would be in front of a grand jury. Since you cannot indict a sitting president, your options are to IMPEACH (meaning the congress acts as the court) or you put him in front of a regular court after they leave office.
But there is enough there in that report to impeach, or to put him on trial after he leaves office.
When the DOJ says you cannot indict a sitting president, they are ALSO not presuming guilt or innocence, but saying only congress can act as the court.
Mueller several times today said that Trump was not exonerated. And on the obstruction part of the report used the words "substantial evidence".
When assholes falsely argue " presumption of innocence" what they are missing, is that the mere act of collecting evidence isn't such. It is just a legal process to bring to a court and let the court decide. If the DOJ is going to argue that the office, regardless of whom occupies it, cannot be charged in a court, they are NOT arguing that the court cannot be congress which is what oversight means. It is why, if Nixon had not stepped down, he would have been impeached. Just like if Nixon had not been president, but broken into a rival company's business.
And what I hated about today, is the lying asshole GOP kept on trying to confuse collusion/conspiracy with obstruction.
If law enforcement asks you a question, at best you have the legal right to keep your mouth shut. But, if you go beyond that, even outside their face to face questioning, and request others do not tell the truth, or try to fire key people involved in that, THAT IS OBSTRUCTION, regardless if you are successful or not.
Mueller said as much. If any other person had done the same, that person would be in front of a grand jury. Since you cannot indict a sitting president, your options are to IMPEACH (meaning the congress acts as the court) or you put him in front of a regular court after they leave office.
But there is enough there in that report to impeach, or to put him on trial after he leaves office.
