Non-Collusion Declaration Non Collusion Declaration: Fill & Download for Free

Impeachment isn’t up to Cohen or even Mueller. Impeachment is up to Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell at the moment and neither one seems the least bit interested in holding Donald accountable. There are multiple impeachable offenses currently. In fact, there were at least two or three his first week in office and that was before the treasonous Helsinki summit and the kidnapping. But without the Republican majority behind it, impeachment, even if Donald actually does shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue, is a non-starter. He wants to argue that the president is above the law, and for all intents and purposes, as long as Congressional Republicans support him, he is above the law. We need to flip both houses to even have a chance at impeachment.But Donald already has taken steps to work around that. He has planted the idea that the Russians are now meddling in order to help the Democrats. If the blue wave is successful, he will no doubt blame it on the non-existent collusion, declare the election invalid, and void all the results before the new Congress can get sworn in. There will be protests, but only Congress or his cabinet could stop him (with the 25th Amendment), and that won’t happen. Then, with this same Congress still behind him, he can continue on his merry way with the destruction of American democracy.After that, I believe, it will take an allied invasion to relieve us of his dictatorship, which may or may not go nuclear. I guess we live in interesting times, but I’d prefer to go back to boring.

If Trump was removed by Article 25, then it would be kind of difficult to prosecute him for anything. Consider he would have been declared non compos mentis by a 2/3s vote of the House. If he’s non compos mentis then he isn’t responsible for the things he does and would therefore be not guilty of anything.

AG Barr lifted word for word from the Mueller report conclusion statement regarding no collusion with Russia. This of course was the issue that Democrats and the mainstream news media had hammered Trump on for 2 years, that he was a traitor and secretly working for Putin. We heard “Just wait until the Mueller report comes out!”The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question openThat was the lynchpin of the argument trying to invalidate Trump’s election, despite non stop Adam (I’ve see the evidence) Schiff on every news outlet claiming otherwise.After Mueller’s wooden recitation at his press conference followed by his underwhelming performance during his day of Congressional hearings, it’s pretty obvious that the individual actually in charge of the investigation was long time Democratic Party supporter and Clinton supporter Andrew Weissman. It’s likely that Weissman also was the person who wrote the letter leaked to the press after Barr’s summary was released, wrote the the majority of the report and also wrote Mueller’s press conference statement and Mueller hesitantly read without taking questions.Mollie Hemingway accurately describes how Republicans look at the Mueller investigation after his live camera testimony in front of Congress.The whole premise of today was that the movie would be better than the book. That the Mueller report didn't do what they wanted to accomplish in book form so if they had visuals it would help people understand the case against the president.What I don't think anybody expected was Mueller would present himself as doddering, as lacking command of anything to do with the election and thereby raising a whole host of questions about who actually was in charge of this Mueller investigation. A lot of people just gave it leeway because they respected him and seeing today I don't think anyone thinks he was in charge.It had been previously reported that 13 of his 17 associates were Democrats, 0 were Republicans. Nine were Democratic donors; six were Hillary Clinton donors. Some were pretty close allies of the Clintons. One attended a Hillary Clinton election rally. So what I think you're going to start seeing many more questions about precisely who was running this investigation and to what end? ...The big change I think is there were Republicans who really did trust the Mueller investigation on the grounds that Robert Mueller was running it alone. He was the only Republican affiliated with it and he apparently had no idea what was going on. So I think you're going to see some people, you're going to see an increase in ranks of people who think that maybe the investigation was not handled properly and there were deep problems with it.Mollie Hemingway: Mueller Doddering Raises Many Questions About Who Precisely Was Running Investigation!And for anyone who thinks there is still an obstruction case to be made, here is what noted George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley has to say about that.After millions of dollars and two years of investigation, the summary of the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller is out. First and foremost, Mueller found there was no established conspiracy or collusion between anyone in the Trump campaign and the Russians. Second, Mueller made a curious type of prosecutor “declination” — not declining to prosecute, as he did on collusion, but declining an opinion either way.That’s right: After more than 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, interviews with hundreds of witnesses and almost 300 judicial orders for records and surveillance, Mueller simply offered a collective shrug from his team regarding the question of obstruction of justice.That was understandably not sufficient for Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who hold the quaint notion that prosecutors are supposed to reach conclusions. That is what they did in a matter of two days, finding that the evidence was clearly insufficient to establish the crime of obstruction.Special counsels are not supposed to end investigations like “The Sopranos” TV series, leaving it to the viewer to guess whether Tony Soprano survived his meal. In reality, the answer is abundantly clear. While the evidence of obstruction was always stronger than collusion, it would be a laughable case to bring in a court of law.CollusionFor two years, legal analysts and politicians convinced voters there was a strong case of collusion-related crimes. The drumbeat of “bombshell” disclosures and “smoking gun” stories was disconcerting and, frankly, disgraceful. At the time of Mueller’s appointment, I wrote that there is no such crime as collusion and little chance that a collusion-related crime like conspiracy could be established. With each new “speaking indictment,” that view was reinforced.Yet, in this age of rage, people were eager to believe experts explaining that a strong case for criminal charges was already established on collusion and they just had to “wait for Mueller” to set things right. Those of us questioning such analysis were painted as “Trumpers” and apologists, even though we criticized Trump for his conduct and comments.The plain fact is that fostering the collusion delusion meant windfall ratings and benefits for pundits and politicians alike. The Democrats used the investigation — and the threat of impeachment — as a rallying cry to retake the House. CNN, MSNBC and others made massive profits off the echo-chamber coverage of the deepening collusion case supposedly to be made by Mueller. Indeed, when I detailed the glaring legal flaws in the collusion theory in February 2018, CNN legal analyst and former White House ethics attorney Norm Eisen assured viewers the criminal case for collusion was “devastating” and Trump was “colluding in plain sight.” Eisen recently was hired by the House Judiciary Committee to help direct its investigation of the president.He was not alone. Cornell Law School Vice Dean Jens David Ohlin declared Donald Trump Jr.’s emails on the infamous Trump Tower meeting were sufficient for criminal charges as “a shocking admission of a criminal conspiracy.” MSNBC legal analyst Paul Butler identified the crime as “conspiring with the U.S.’s sworn enemy to take over and subvert our democracy” and declared that “what Donald Trump Jr. is alleged to have done is a federal crime.”Even after some of us noted that the absence of additional indictments clearly showed Mueller had not found criminal collusion, many rushed forward to keep the delusion alive. On Sunday, House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) went on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to insist there is ample evidence of collusion — even though not a single person was charged with it. He also insisted Trump might be guilty of collusion but Mueller simply could not indict him under existing Justice Department policies.That, too, turned out to be untrue. Mueller found no evidence of either Trump or his campaign colluding with the Russians.ObstructionWhile Mueller can be commended for reaching a conclusion on collusion, his position on obstruction was incomplete and, frankly, irresponsible. Mueller simply says that “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”What does that mean, exactly? Law is not supposed to be an impressionistic art form in which some see a criminal and others see a crank.Yet, Barr reported that “The Special Counsel… did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.”Of course, we all knew there was evidence on both sides of this issue. As Barr notes, most of that evidence already has been publicly discussed. Yet, Mueller seems to have left the public with a lingering Sopranos-like finale of “What do you think?”If Mueller believed Trump’s conduct constituted obstruction, he had a duty to say so. What makes his position all the more maddening is that the question does not appear a close one. As I have previously discussed in columns, it is possible to charge someone for obstructing an investigation into a nonexistent crime. While it is hard to do, Trump made his best effort with a long series of inappropriate comments and actions viewed as hostile to the investigation.However, the question of a criminal charge comes down to motivation and state of mind. Trump’s comments on the investigation are not isolated departures from the new normal of his administration. He has ignored widespread calls for restraint in his public statements on subjects ranging from immigration to North Korea to NATO. In these areas, he has incautiously attacked cabinet members and fired a slew of officials, from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to multiple chiefs of staff.Mueller concluded that Trump was not hiding collusion but was taking steps that could be viewed as obstructive. That is obvious.However, to bring a criminal case on the actual crime of obstruction would be absurd. Trump could simply argue that he viewed the collusion investigation to be a deep-state conspiracy and refused to stay quiet about it — but he never fired Mueller, destroyed evidence, or forced an early conclusion to the investigation.Indeed, even fired FBI director James Comey said Trump agreed that the investigation should be allowed to continue, to reach its own conclusions. Trump objected that Comey would not tell the public what he was telling Congress: that Trump was not a target of that investigation.Mueller's end: A conclusion on collusion, but confusion on obstruction