Schiff, who led the first impeachment against Trump, is likely referring to evidence collected by the Mueller investigation. He would have had access to all the information redacted when the Mueller Report was released. I can understand believing that report was a hoax because that's what Trump, William Barr (who delivered a public statement with numerous inaccuracies about the report a few days before it was publicly released), and right-leaning media outlets wanted everyone to believe.
In order to discern for myself what was true and what wasn't back then, I personally compared Barr's statement to the actual text of the report, and his effort to mislead the public became very clear to me. This article does a great job of listing and explaining much of the disinformation, including what I saw, about the Mueller Report and why Trump wasn't indicted then: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-mueller-didnt-charge-trump-with-obstruction-of-justice-2019-4?op=1#heres-why-mueller-didnt-charge-trump-with-obstruction-according-to-his-report-5.
I strongly recommend anyone who really wants to know the truth read that article. It includes several quotes from the Mueller Report itself, which can be found here: http://nyti.ms/2I8jmPP. [This copy, from the NY Times, is a complete, searchable and indexed version, with references and some commentary. It's gifted, so there shouldn't be any paywall issues.]
In the first article linked, the reasons for not charging Trump at the time are all listed in the beginning, followed by detailed explanation of each. Below is a 'cut and paste' of the summation at the end. (It's a little easier to read with formatting in the original article.) The parts in quotation marks below are taken directly from the actual Mueller Report.
***********************************
Mueller's report lays out three main reasons why prosecutors didn't indict Trump or suggest he should be charged:
They adhered to the OLC's [Office of Legal Counsel] 1973 decision that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
They believed that if their report suggested Trump could face federal charges without actually bringing them, it would not be fair because there would be no trial, and he wouldn't have an opportunity to clear himself.
Mueller did not consider filing a sealed indictment against Trump out of fear that it would be leaked and significantly impede his ability to govern.
Notably, however, prosecutors said that while the OLC's guidance says a sitting president cannot be indicted, it "recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible."
"The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office," they added. "Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."
That wording leaves open the possibility that Trump could be charged with obstruction of justice once he leaves office.
*****************************
I found those words particularly interesting, given current events...
Finally, two notes on the original point of the Russian collusion being a hoax: First, they refer to "obstruction of justice", not collusion because "collusion" isn't a legal term in federal criminal law, as explained somewhere in one of these two links. Second, "...prosecutors went further than stating they did not exonerate Trump. Specifically, they laid out a road map of **evidence** that could bolster ongoing or future investigations into Trump's conduct while in office." [** added by me for emphasis.]
I think this topic is a great example of how information spin can lead to misunderstanding of the facts of a situation. It also illustrates the sadly greater-than-ever importance of fact-checking and critical thinking by us all when consuming news.
|
