Prosecutors can bring charge of obstruction after president leaves office, Mueller says

Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., pressed Robert Mueller on the ethics of charging the president after he leaves office.

#ABCNews #News #Mueller #Testimony #Hearing #MuellerReport #Politics

[anonymousjoker]

Finally that's what we wanted to know

[oooscandiluss]

I THINK WE SHOULD VOTE WHERE'S WALDO FOR PRESIDENT! :D #WheresWaldo2020

[orion]

He didn't answer whether there were actually grounds for a charge ... only IF he COULD be charged. ABC is slicing and dicing this whole thing. They should just post the entire hearing for the people with attention spans longer than 30 seconds.

[ninzombie]

Which President are we talking about though???

[andrewthompson]

Of course they can, but the question is should they. Believe it or not you have to have an actual crime to prosecute; of course these people are law makers and know that, but they are pathetic children determined to get a "gotcha" moment for the cameras no matter how disingenuous it is to the America people. GROW UP!

[organicvids]

" he can continue the instigation to see if there are any other persons involved in the CONSPIRACY" hummmm

[TheRealpdq]

Of course he CAN, anyone CAN be charged with obstruction. The question is, SHOULD a charge of obstruction after president leaves office be brought to court.

[packerfan]

I'm a Republican that won't be voting for Trump in 2020!

[danielthesantos]

Unfortunate that Buck didn't clarify the question more. He began asking about the belief that Trump committed a criminal obstruction, but then switched to the question of if he can be prosecuted for obstruction after he left office. To this Mueller agreed, but now it remains unclear to which parts of the question he has agreed. My guess, knowing how cautious Mueller is about speculation, is that he was only answering the last part of it. Although, clearly, Trump has committed obstruction of justice, he's leaving that for Congress to decide.


What a sh*t show. :( I would like to see a constitutional amendment to remove this ambiguity so that future impeachment decisions can be made upon solid legal and non-political grounds. If we want to survive as a nation (and not fall into civil war or autocracy) then we need to take MANY actions to assure this never happens again. And I think we need to reverse Regan's deregulation that allowed a "news" broadcast to say any damn thing they want, regardless of the clear, unambiguous, objectives and observable facts of the situation -- no more opinion shows calling themselves news, either "liberal" or "conservative"!

[kieragardner]

I hope they don’t charge Mueller. After all he was just doing his job.

[Stonktradomus]

Robert " I don't know, because I haven't looked at the ethical standards" Mueller

[brandragoon]

Of course it’s freaking ethical, the presidents not a king. There are laws and he has to follow them too.

[aidanafshar]

Sounds like desperation. Mueller told them what they wanted to hear even if it's not true or even possible.

[Bjj]

Not under the Ethical Standards he can’t. The evidence isn’t there.

[CitizenLutz]

This guy would be the flakeycrats chief witness. In other words, they have a whole lot of expensive nothing...as usual.

[bossladiee]

💣every Republican up for reelection in 2020 will be unemployed #bluewave

[gagewesterhouse]

A $25, 000, 000 nothing burger. Wasn't able to prove innocence. Wasn't able to prove guilt.

[braxtongary]

After y’all find out y’all can’t do that either you’re going to be like can we charge him once he’s passed to the other side

[Subninja]

Funny with this question he answered so readily. Instead of his default “I can’t get into that.” Seems anytime a question is asked that credits the President he “can’t get into it” or it isn’t in his purview. Yet any question asked which discredits the president he freely answers. Hmm?

[monstermustang]

All hes saying is he could, but u could on anyone don't mean they did it.