Democrats should be relieved and happy if no collusion was discovered...

[kentuck]

That was a huge concern for every Democrat when the investigation began. They had to know whether or not Donald Trump was a Russian asset and if this report proves that he wasn't, then we should be very relieved.

But, we cannot know until we read the report.

The DOJ decided years ago that they could not indict a sitting President. It would be out of their authority and unconstitutional. It would look like a mutiny within the Executive Branch and could not be rationalized as a legal action. The Constitution requires Congress, not the DOJ, to make any determinations against the president of the United States.

The DOJ could not indict Trump. Even if there were crimes discovered and proven. They must turn over any information or evidence to the Congress. The Constitution requires it.

[dlk]

1. The Rule About Not Indicting a Sitting President is a DOJ Opinion/Rule, Not an Actual Law

Given Trump's levels corruption, this really needs to be settled by the courts. As a democratic republic, do we really believe the president is above the law? If so, how is that any different from having a monarch or dictator in charge?

[lancelyons]

4. I agree but I think Mueller would have to get permission to do this and then it would be a tuff haul

Going to the courts and fighting up through the Supreme Court would be tough.

If the evidence was so overwhelming then the notion that Congress would do something is what he is believing in.

I am just not sure that any Republicans would care if he was an asset of Russia and working to undermine USA for Russia 's purpose.

Its like all of these people have been hypnotized by Putin.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

7. Yes, thank you... my, how times have changed!! I'll settle for impeachment though...

paging Maxine Waters...


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[lancelyons]

2. You are correct

However, we hall all seen and heard much of the evidence put out by the media over the last couple years.

If after all this evidence is presented they find that he didnt do anything wrong, most will disagree with that notion and find that narrative false.

They arent Lying to cover up nothing.

[rzemanfl]

3. Have you listened to "Bagman?" It provides a lot of background on the

"cannot indict a sitting President" business. Then along came Monica....

[stopbush]

5. Er, the 25th Amendment provides clear Constitutional authority

to remove a sitting president by the president’s cabinet. Would that be considered a “mutiny within the exec branch?” Don’t think so.

[kentuck]

6. It would require 75% of both houses of Congress...

to remove by 25th Amendment. It is still in the hands of Congress.

[njhoneybadger]

8. The report CAN NOT prove he isn't or wasn't a Russian asset.

[kentuck]

9. I disagree.

We have seen a lot of circumstantial evidence already. We don't know if Mueller found direct evidence to prove it further.

[Kaleva]

10. Can't prove a negative.

[uponit7771]

11. Red Don has gone past the point of being disloyal to America even if he's no guilty of a technical

... meaning of a law being broken.