HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Bullshit on this "unconst...

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:08 AM

Bullshit on this "unconstitutional" reason for not indicting the p.o.s.

Where does it say that?

113 replies, 2804 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 113 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bullshit on this "unconstitutional" reason for not indicting the p.o.s. (Original post)
Goodheart May 2019 OP
Celerity May 2019 #1
OnDoutside May 2019 #2
Celerity May 2019 #8
ehrnst May 2019 #28
OnDoutside May 2019 #41
The Blue Flower May 2019 #3
ehrnst May 2019 #100
The Blue Flower May 2019 #108
ehrnst May 2019 #110
Honeycombe8 May 2019 #4
Goodheart May 2019 #5
Honeycombe8 May 2019 #6
Goodheart May 2019 #9
Honeycombe8 May 2019 #13
tymorial May 2019 #52
ehrnst May 2019 #70
Honeycombe8 May 2019 #105
The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #63
elleng May 2019 #82
ehrnst May 2019 #73
emmaverybo May 2019 #80
Celerity May 2019 #10
ehrnst May 2019 #35
Celerity May 2019 #47
ehrnst May 2019 #48
Celerity May 2019 #50
Celerity May 2019 #65
ehrnst May 2019 #68
ehrnst May 2019 #30
D00ver May 2019 #103
meow2u3 May 2019 #7
Honeycombe8 May 2019 #11
onenote May 2019 #12
ehrnst May 2019 #16
ehrnst May 2019 #36
InAbLuEsTaTe May 2019 #102
ehrnst May 2019 #109
InAbLuEsTaTe May 2019 #111
ehrnst May 2019 #112
InAbLuEsTaTe May 2019 #113
GeorgeGist May 2019 #14
Honeycombe8 May 2019 #20
ehrnst May 2019 #15
Goodheart May 2019 #18
ehrnst May 2019 #21
coti May 2019 #24
ehrnst May 2019 #26
coti May 2019 #31
ehrnst May 2019 #38
coti May 2019 #40
ehrnst May 2019 #45
PoliticAverse May 2019 #56
ehrnst May 2019 #58
PoliticAverse May 2019 #61
ehrnst May 2019 #64
PoliticAverse May 2019 #67
ehrnst May 2019 #69
PoliticAverse May 2019 #72
ehrnst May 2019 #74
PoliticAverse May 2019 #94
ehrnst May 2019 #95
FBaggins May 2019 #98
FBaggins May 2019 #78
ehrnst May 2019 #88
Goodheart May 2019 #29
ehrnst May 2019 #49
FBaggins May 2019 #81
ehrnst May 2019 #93
FBaggins May 2019 #97
ehrnst May 2019 #99
happybird May 2019 #104
ehrnst May 2019 #107
shockey80 May 2019 #17
ehrnst May 2019 #22
Goodheart May 2019 #32
ehrnst May 2019 #39
Goodheart May 2019 #44
ehrnst May 2019 #51
Goodheart May 2019 #54
ehrnst May 2019 #60
Goodheart May 2019 #71
ehrnst May 2019 #75
Post removed May 2019 #90
ehrnst May 2019 #92
ehrnst May 2019 #42
Honeycombe8 May 2019 #23
ehrnst May 2019 #43
TCJ70 May 2019 #19
ehrnst May 2019 #25
coti May 2019 #27
Goodheart May 2019 #33
ehrnst May 2019 #53
TCJ70 May 2019 #34
ehrnst May 2019 #55
coti May 2019 #37
ehrnst May 2019 #62
The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #76
TCJ70 May 2019 #77
The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #79
ehrnst May 2019 #86
TCJ70 May 2019 #89
ehrnst May 2019 #91
The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #84
Bromwell May 2019 #46
ehrnst May 2019 #57
The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #66
FBaggins May 2019 #83
The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #85
FBaggins May 2019 #96
The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #106
Celerity May 2019 #59
blueinredohio May 2019 #87
ehrnst May 2019 #101

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:10 AM

1. indeed, it is pure rot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:10 AM

2. Subpoena his ass. Mueller doesn't get to dictate to Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #2)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:17 AM

8. he basically just said he will simply read from the report if he is called before Congress

So fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnDoutside (Reply #2)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:27 PM

28. He's not. He's following the DOJ rules on not being allowed to indict a sitting POTUS. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #28)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:42 PM

41. No, not that bit. As Celerity said, he would basically only read from the report, if called before

Congress, so no point him appearing. That's not good enough. What about the Summary letter Barr put out ? What about the press conference where Barr said no collusion etc ? There are lots he should be made answer, and he doesn't get to dictate the terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:12 AM

3. A memorandum is not the Constitution

That was a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Blue Flower (Reply #3)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:36 PM

100. No one said that it was. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #100)

Thu May 30, 2019, 09:18 PM

108. Rachel Maddow interviewed the author of the 1973 memo that established the principle

It was earlier this year. He said he was astonished that his OPINION now was considered to have the weight of constitutional law. He felt it should be suspended in this instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Blue Flower (Reply #108)

Fri May 31, 2019, 03:59 AM

110. Again... no one, including Mueller said that this memorandum is "the Constitution"

He said that the DOJ policy was that it was "unconsitutional."

But I'll bite - who is doing the "lying" on this thread?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:12 AM

4. It's DOJ policy. He made it clear that as a DOJ official, he's bound by DOJ policy. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #4)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:13 AM

5. Mueller said more than that. That it's unconstitutional.

He obviously shares that opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #5)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:14 AM

6. That's the DOJ's opinion, which is why it's policy. He didn't express a personal opinion...

his personal opinion wouldn't matter, anyway. As a DOJ official, he's bound by DOJ policy, he said.

We knew that an indictment of a sitting President would have to be decided by the S.Ct., so that was not going to be an option, realistically. (Gee, I guess what Roberts, Gorsuch, & Kavanaugh would find on that point of law?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #6)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:17 AM

9. Mueller SAID IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I heard you the first time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #9)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:21 AM

13. Here it is.

Mueller then explained, citing Department of Justice policy, that a President "cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional."


cnn.com

He was speaking of the DOJ policy. It is NOT up to Mueller to decide whether the DOJ is wrong in its policy. Not his job. No point in it, anyway. He is bound by DOJ policy. He didn't consider taking another avenue, or if that avenue was available. Because there was no indictment avenue available for him to even consider.

That was the entire point he was making.

He did say later that "it would require something other than a criminal proceeding" to hold the Prez accountable for obstruction of Justice, if he did obstruct.

Sum total is: in his opinion and in the opinion of the DOJ, a sitting President can't be indicted. The ultimate decider on that would be Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. What do you think they'll say the law is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #13)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:03 PM

52. Give up. There are some here that refuse to accept anything other than Mueller GOP Corrupt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tymorial (Reply #52)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:35 PM

70. I guess we all need a dragon to slay when we feel powerless.

The closest ones seem to be Pelosi and Mueller, unfortunately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tymorial (Reply #52)

Wed May 29, 2019, 03:37 PM

105. Yep. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #9)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:17 PM

63. He said the OLC memo says it's unconstitutional.

Here's what the OLC said: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf It would be a good idea to read it before opining on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #63)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:52 PM

82. Thanks. Summarized in preface:

'The indictm ent o r cnm inal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the
capacity o f the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #9)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:39 PM

73. Here is what Mueller actually said, in context...

The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counselís office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html


To simply take "That is unconstitutional" out of that context is no different than the GOP trope where Obama said "You didn't build that," he was talking about the businesses that people built.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #73)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:51 PM

80. Thank you for parsing this. Yes, he is referring to what the policy claims. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #5)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:18 AM

10. yes! He ADDED the bloody unconstitutional part! DOJ 'policy' is NOT in the Constitution

ffs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Reply #10)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:34 PM

35. Neither is abortion, or the right to privacy, but both have been interpreted to have been covered

in the 14th amendment.

The DOJ has determined that indicting a sitting president is unconstitutional. Muller was bound by the rules of the DOJ. Barr totally agrees with this rule - why do you think Trump chose him?

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing valdity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #35)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:51 PM

47. I think that really needs to be revisited, or if it indeed found to be valid, then a Constitutional

Amendment needs to be drafted to remedy this.

If not, then given a favourable political numeration in Congress (such as Trump has now) literally allows a POTUS to get away with ANYTHING from a legal standpoint. He literally could break any federal laws he could dream up and walk away scot-free. That is madness.

Quick question. Does that ruling preclude violations of state laws as well? Could he take an M27 IAR into a presser in say Florida, and just mow down 50 reporters, and then still walk away with no charges whilst POTUS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Reply #47)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:54 PM

48. That's all well and good, but during the time of the Mueller investigation the DOJ

Last edited Wed May 29, 2019, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)

holds that it's unconstitutional, and Mueller knew that there could be no screw ups, because there was a target on his head and on the report by the WH.

The report would have been jettisoned as a personal vendetta by Mueller, who was going rogue from the DOJ.

Does that ruling preclude violations of state laws as well? Could he take an M27 IAR into a presser in say Florida, and just mow down 50 reporters, and then still walk away with no charges whilst POTUS?


You would need to consult a constitutional law scholar on that. However, I think that if POTUS did mow down 50 reporters, removing him under the 25th amendment would be way quicker than impeachment.

Once he was out of office, then he could be indicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #48)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:58 PM

50. so, as predicted, it truly is all up to Congress, and the Senate is in the tank for Rump

Well, in 2020 it is up to the American voters. May we choose wisely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #48)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:18 PM

65. just wanted to say thank you for the clear, concise explanation as well

and all the attendant linkage as to why it exists

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Reply #65)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:31 PM

68. You're welcome!

Thank you for the appreciation.



There is a lot of hair on fire here at DU, and it's understandable. When emotions run high, the lizard brain takes over and the analytical part gets put on hold. It's up to leaders to keep a cool head and strategize. That's one reason that I'm glad we have Pelosi as Speaker at this point in History. Having grown up in a chaotic household, I learned early to remain very collected in the face of anger and instability. It was a survival mechanism that's served me well. It got me out of an armed carjacking with the car.

I've been fascinated with conflict management (as opposed to conflict resolution) lately. Took a workshop on it.

Not all conflict can be resolved, and if we aren't directing our anger in the right direction, we waste precious energy and time spinning our wheels.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #5)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:28 PM

30. Whether or not he shares the opinion, he is bound by the rules.

Last edited Wed May 29, 2019, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Imagine what would have happened to the report if he had failed to cross a single t or dot a single i.

The entire thing would have been discredited - evidence and all.

And he said that the DOJ policy says that indictment of a sitting POTUS is unconstitutional.. Mueller offered no opinion as to its Constitutionality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #5)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:49 PM

103. He did

 

Maybe it was a mis speak. There is nothing in the constitution that allows the president NOT be prosecuted for breaking the law. Not sure how supposedly smart people can conflate that in anyway much less OLC. That was a political statement back in 70s. It has NO baring on actual law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:15 AM

7. Not indicting a sitting president needs to be tested in court

I don't recall the Supreme Court ruling on an opinion handed down by the Office of Legal Counsel. Someone needs to take this opinion to court to verify or refute this opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #7)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:18 AM

11. Gee, I wonder how Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, & Thomas would rule on that?

There's no point in going to the SCT on that question. A lot of time and expense for nothing.

And at the end of it, a Grand Jury might not even return an indictment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #7)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:19 AM

12. Who do you think has standing to "take this opinion to court"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #7)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:37 AM

16. The AG makes that call for the DOJ. Why do you think that DT wanted Barr? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #7)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:35 PM

36. What do you think this SCOTUS would say if it came before them?


In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing valdity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #7)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:39 PM

102. Yes it does!!


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #102)

Fri May 31, 2019, 03:57 AM

109. Before 'this' SCOTUS? You want a **SCOTUS ruling** that it IS constitutional?

That would make it permanent. You really want that???

Let's just impeach Clarence Thomas while we're at it, so Trump can replace him with a younger version.

People need to think about the consequences of what they want....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #109)

Fri May 31, 2019, 06:48 AM

111. Yes, absolutely, BEFORE Shitstain even has a CHANCE to get re-elected & stack the Supreme Court

even MORE with radical Justices - and ALL the federal courts with right-wing judges - who will come down with a whole host of radical decisions on every legal issue we hold dear, including a woman's right to choose.

Yes INDEED, people need to think about the consequences of what they want... they need to think ahead!! Under no circumstances can we allow the Traitor-in-Chief to be re-elected and overwhelm the court system with more and more conservative nut-jobs that will negatively affect legal outcomes for decades to come. Better to take the chance NOW... and, if the Supreme Court DOES rule that a sitting president can't be indicted, then, so be it, that ruling will also apply to future, DEMOCRATIC Presidents.


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #111)

Fri May 31, 2019, 07:18 AM

112. Let me get this straight.... You want to guarantee that it will be permanent

that a sitting POTUS can't be indicted?

Because that is what taking it to this SCOTUS would do.

Why?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #112)

Fri May 31, 2019, 08:53 AM

113. All you have to do is READ what I said... it's all right to there.

Do you need a link to the post?


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:34 AM

14. Barr says it's unconstitutional ...

when you read between the lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #14)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:09 PM

20. That's been the DOJ's opinion for decades.

In any event, however, we conclude that these precedents are largely consistent with the Departmentís 1973
determinations that (1) the proper doctrinal analysis requires a balancing between the responsibilities of the President as the sole head of the executive branch against the important governmental purposes supporting the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President; and (2) the proper balance supports recognition of a temporary immunity from such criminal process while the President remains in office. Indeed, United States v. Nixon and Nixon v. Fitzgerald recognized and embraced the same type of constitutional balancing test anticipated in this Officeís 1973 memorandum. Clinton v. Jones, which held that the President
is not immune from at least certain judicial proceedings while in office, even if those proceedings may prove somewhat burdensome, does not change our conclusion in 1973 and again today that a sitting President cannot constitutionally be indicted or tried.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/legacy/2014/01/29/op-olc-24.pdf

That opinion was written in 2006, during GWB's administration. But it was written by the AG, Janet Reno, a Clinton appointee.

If Trump doesn't get re-elected, he could be indicted then, if the statute of limitations hasn't run.

It could go to the S.Ct., maybe, but there's no point, as long as it's a Republican Court with the likes of extremists like Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh on the bench. That would make Roberts the deciding Justice, and although he may not an extremist, he's not a moderate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:37 AM

15. The DOJ said that he could not indict a sitting president.

The DOJ has the authority to make that call, as per the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #15)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:50 AM

18. "As per the Constitution"?

Cite the Article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #18)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:19 PM

21. DOJ has that discretion. Barr is the head of the DOJ.

As per the Constitution. Now, because the Constitution does not have a direct cite for everything (for instance, wire fraud), one has to take into account various decisions handed down the last few hundred years.

The entire purpose of SCOTUS is to interpret whether something is or is not constitutional, so if it was cut and dried for everything, we wouldn't need one SCOTUS judge, let alone nine. There would be no use for constitutional law classes or degrees.

So...This memorandum (and no I am not advocating it) from 2000 from the DOJ lays out their case for not indicting a sitting POTUS, with citations from the Constitution.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #21)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:23 PM

24. That's completely different than saying it's "unconstitutional." Cut the crap. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #24)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:25 PM

26. Actually, no it's not.

This is the same response when I tell a RWer that abortion is protected by the 14th amendment, even though it's not directly addressed in the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #26)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:29 PM

31. Your posts are consistently dishonest and rhetorical, and this is no different.

The President is most definitely NOT protected from indictment by the Constitution, which is the point you're trying to- for SOME ridiculous reason- get to with your rhetoric. No, the only reason Mueller could not indict Trump- as Mueller himself said- was because of the thinly-reasoned DOJ policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #31)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:37 PM

38. Yes, the DOJ determined in 1973 that it would violate the *constitutional separation of powers*


In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing valdity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Why do you think I would be dishonest? Namecalling doesn't change the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #38)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:41 PM

40. They don't make determinations of constitutionality, or make the law.

Congress and the courts do.

Therefore, particularly given there is NOTHING in the Constitution stating that a President can't be indicted- and wouldn't that be a pretty glaring omission to not mention it if it had been the intention of the Consitutional framers that just one person was above the law?- it is NOT unconstitutional to indict a President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #40)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:49 PM

45. I'm simply stating that the DOJ memo interprets it as unconstitutional and Barr stands by it.

Mueller was correct in stating that the DOJ considers indicting a sitting POTUS unconsitutional.

If you think that Mueller said that he thought it was unconstitutional, then you are wrong, and need to read what he said.

And what sinister motive do you think I have for correcting you on this?



Talk about attacking the messenger....



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #45)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:07 PM

56. There have been 19 years since that memo for an Attorney General to reverse that "official policy"

and none has yet done so (including the ones serving under a Democratic President).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #56)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:12 PM

58. Not clear on your point.

The current AG supports the case made in the memo. The last 19 years aren't relevant to that now.

Barn door, horse...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #58)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:16 PM

61. Since we're talking about a policy based on an (formalized) opinion from 19 years ago...

of course any formalized DOJ opinions since then would have been relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #61)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:18 PM

64. You just said that there were none that would have reversed it.

So.... that which would be relevant doesn't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #64)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:20 PM

67. That's the point. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #67)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:34 PM

69. So you are faulting Democratic POTUSes for not reversing it?

Why? Was there a pressing issue that I missed that would have merited revisiting it in the last two Democratic administrations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #69)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:38 PM

72. If the policy was incorrect it certainly should have been reversed. As to why - you are seeing why

right now - so if Barr wanted to reverse the current policy he'd have to explicitly do so and it would be obvious to everyone that he was reversing the then current "official policy" and would have highlighted the fact that this is an unsettled constitutional issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #72)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:41 PM

74. So again... barn door, horse.

And hindsight being 20/20 and all... you are blaming Obama for not making it a priority during a time when the GOP base was screaming for impeachment because 'lying about his birth certificate," and 'lying about being a Muslim" and "Jade Helm," and "wanting to pull the plug on Grandma with a power grab on medical care."

And you don't remember any situation where that would have been a pressing priority for a Democratic POTUS in the last 19 years. Particularly after a Democratic POTUS was impeached for lying about a blow job.

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #74)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:15 PM

94. It's not "hindsight" as I've held the same opinion for a while.

I'm not "blaming Obama", I do think an Attorney General in the last 19 years should have gotten another legal opinion as to the constitutionality of indicting a sitting President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #94)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:17 PM

95. So you're blaming Loretta Lynch?

And how is that productive?

Also, what pressing need brought this up as a priority - what with all the spare time that administration had to fill....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #94)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:35 PM

98. 19 years ago WAS the "other legal opinion"

This has been the unchanged opinion of the DOJ since 1973.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #40)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:49 PM

78. Of course they do

Where did you get that notion?

I find it interesting that you include Congress along with the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #24)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:04 PM

88. There's only one person in this back and forth spouting "crap"



which often comes from embarassment at being corrected.

You may want to take a break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #21)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:27 PM

29. I repeat... "As per the Constitution"?

Cite the Article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #29)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:56 PM

49. I repeat... the ****DOJ*** believes it is a violation of the *constitutional separation of powers.*

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing valdity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #49)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:51 PM

81. Which is binding on all members of the DOJ unless/until it gets changed or overruled.

Mueller has no choice in that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #81)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:14 PM

93. Indeed. But there seem to be a lot of people who need to slay a dragon

and Mueller was on TV, and said "unconstitutional," so a feeding frenzy began on him and anyone who tried to point out what was true and what wasn't concerning what he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #93)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:29 PM

97. I'd be willing to bet...

... that Mueller has a better grasp on that topic than those in the "feeding frenzy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #97)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:35 PM

99. But a frenzy is very validating to those in it. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #93)

Wed May 29, 2019, 03:23 PM

104. Thank you for so patiently explaining

Idk why so many are pissed at Mueller. The way I see it he did a thorough investigation and he found and detailed 10 instances of obstruction of justice. That's a big effin' deal. That's where his job ends. It's now up to the House to take that evidence and start impeachment proceedings- which they are doing, it just takes a while to do it RIGHT. They only get one shot at it. People need to practice some damn patience. It's like they think a POTUS can be impeached in 60 days or less. Smh.

And, Mueller supposedly passed on info to NY about financial crimes, so we'll eventually see if anything comes of that.

Mr. Mueller is an extremely smart, experienced professional. IMO, he did a great job under very difficult circumstances. You are absolutely right about the target on his back and what would had happened had he not crossed one single t.

It's not his fault Senate of full of corrupt trumphumpers. It's up to We, the People to toss them out on their ears in the next elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happybird (Reply #104)

Wed May 29, 2019, 06:20 PM

107. Indeed.

Thank you for your kind words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:40 AM

17. I also noticed that statement.

There is nothing in the constitution that says that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shockey80 (Reply #17)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:22 PM

22. There is nothing in the Constitution about protecting privacy either.

The Constitution has been interpreted for centuries. I tried to explain that to right wingers for years on abortion, and never thought I'd have to be explaining that concept on DU...

The DOJ has interpreted the Constitution in this way (and no, I am not advocating for it)

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing valdity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #22)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:30 PM

32. Actually, there's PLENTY of implicit privacy protection in the Constitution.

On the other hand, there is NOTHING that implicitly says a sitting president can not be indicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #32)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:40 PM

39. Where is the protection of privacy implicit in the Constitution?

Can you give the cite?

How about abortion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #39)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:48 PM

44. The Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches", for one

obviously IMPLIES that people have a right to privacy. If not, there would never be anything unreasonable about a search.

The First Amendment's protection against government restrictions against religion IMPLIES that such thought is a private matter.

The Third Amendment's protection against soldiers in civilian homes IMPLIES that a household is a private matter.

And so forth.

Shall I go on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #44)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:59 PM

51. Nope. "Obviously implies" is not a direct protection.

Not mentioned anywhere.

Medical privacy was not even a concept then, therefore it wasn't directly protected in the constitution. It was interpreted as a protection under the 14th amendment in 1973.

I suppose you think that SCOTUS isn't necessary, since determining if something is or isn't constitutional is really just a matter of what is "obvious?"

Do go on.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #51)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:06 PM

54. Do you even know what the words "implies" and "implicit" mean?

Consult your dictionary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #54)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:14 PM

60. I do. Nice red herring though.



You still haven't shown me where protection for privacy and abortion are spelled out.

Nor have you explained why we even need a SCOTUS, if everything is so 'obvious' in the Constitution.

200+ years of judicial interpretation all for nothing, eh?

Just like the tea partiers who all became constitutional 'scholars' overnight when Obama was elected.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #60)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:38 PM

71. Yes, I have shown you. You wouldn't be saying otherwise if you knew what "implies" and "implicit"

mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #71)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:45 PM

75. Nope. You just said it was "obviously implied"

Which precludes any need for a SCOTUS if that's how 'obvious' the Constitution is. You haven't shown me where medical privacy/abortion are protected explicitly. This is like arguing with a Tea Partier who is convinced that abortion HAS to be directly, literally protected in the Constitution, or else it's not protected, and they've read the Constitution, so they know.....

It's an evasion because you were corrected, and I'm assuming embarrased about it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #75)


Response to Post removed (Reply #90)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:12 PM

92. So we have another red herring.

Did you find a sale?

"Dismissed for lack of smarts."

You really are embarassed, aren't you?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #32)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:43 PM

42. *According to the DOJ* it violates the constitutional separation of powers

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing valdity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Is that clearer?

Again... there is also nothing in the Constitution that implicitly protects privacy or abortion either. Or wire fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shockey80 (Reply #17)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:23 PM

23. Think of it this way: In Mueller's opinion, he is bound by DOJ policy.

And in his opinion, DOJ policy is correct. That it's unconstitutional.

So you have the Special Counsel's office saying that, and the DOJ/AG's office saying that. It would take the S.Ct. or a constitutional amendment to change that, neither of which is possible at this time.

That avenue is closed. We live in a Republican country right now, and an extremist one, at that. The extremist Justices on the S.Ct., and an extremist Republican Senate make it foolish to spend the time and millions it would take to take it to the S.Ct.

Even if you get a decision saying Mueller isn't bound by DOJ or that a sitting Presiden can be indicted, Mueller isn't going to indict Trump. He thinks the avenue for obstruction is something other than the criminal avenue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #23)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:45 PM

43. I have no idea what Mueller thinks of the DOJ policy

other than it is the DOJ policy, and he is bound by it as the special counsel.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Wed May 29, 2019, 11:50 AM

19. I literally said that out loud in my car when he said it. It's not unconstitutional...

...and it's bullshit to suggest that it is. It's stupid, ignorant DOJ policy that literally puts the president above the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #19)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:23 PM

25. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects a right to abortion either, however

an interpretation of the 14th amendment was determined to include medical privacy.

The DOJ has interpreted the Constitution as supporting a ban on indicting a sitting POTUS. No, I am not advocating for this.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #19)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:25 PM

27. When who said it? Chuck Todd or Mueller?

Mueller didn't say it was unconstitutional, he said it was DOJ policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #27)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:30 PM

33. Actually, Mueller said "that is unconstitutional".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #33)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:05 PM

53. No, he said it was "long standing departmental policy" that says it is unconstitutional.

The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counselís office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html

You're welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #27)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:32 PM

34. Mueller absolutely said it was unconstitutional to indict a sitting president:

The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #34)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:07 PM

55. "under longstanding department policy"

The departmental policy is what states it is unconstitutional.

He is bound by departmental policy.

Is that clearer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coti (Reply #27)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:35 PM

37. No, he said that the DOJ "opinion" says that- i.e., the policy reasoning (which would be wrong) said

that the process "requires" impeachment, though I can't even say that that's necessarily true. Regardless, he didn't state it as truth, but as part of the policy reasoning he had to follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #19)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:17 PM

62. It's not 'bullshit' for Mueller to say that the DOJ policy is that it's unconstitutional.

In fact, he was pointing out that it was his reason for not indicting DT, even though they had no reason to believe that he was innocent of crimes.

He was suggesting that his hands were tied, and this was the only thing he could do, and still be within the rules set up by the DOJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #19)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:47 PM

76. Here's the OLC opinion, which I would suggest reading before opining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #76)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:48 PM

77. I did read it. I find their opinion silly...also...

...since when do OLC opinions make something unconstitutional?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #77)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:50 PM

79. It's an opinion. It's never been tested in court.

However, this Supreme Court would almost certainly agree with the reasoning set forth in the opinion. You could disagree with the opinion - some legal scholars do, too - but I wouldn't call it silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #77)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:55 PM

86. Well, apparently in 2000 the DOJ made it so *in their policy.*

Shoot the messenger all you like, and call the DOJ "silly," but that's what we're dealing with.

Just because you didn't know about something, doesn't render it non-existent.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #86)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:04 PM

89. I've been aware of the opinion for quite some time, thank you.

And I didn't call the entire DOJ silly...just this opinion. Regardless, this OLC document does not make something unconstitutional. That may be their opinion, but that doesn't make it so. That's up to the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #89)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:10 PM

91. No one has said that it's unconstitutional. Who are you arguing with now?

That OLC document makes the policy at the DOJ at this time. That's all I've stated. You're simply repeating what I've been saying for awhile now.

If you want to fight about whether indicting a sitting POTUS is constitutional, then find someone who thinks it is unconstitutional. Sorry to disappoint.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #19)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:53 PM

84. What's the legal basis for the constitutionality of indicting a president?

The OLS opinion says it would violate the Constitutional principle of separation of powers. What's the argument and legal authority for holding that it doesn't? Something more compelling than "bullshit"? If I'm going to the Supreme Court with this I want something better than "bullshit."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Wed May 29, 2019, 12:50 PM

46. Irony Alert!

Mueller says he couldn't/wouldn't indict b/c its not fair to make that accusation of a person who can't then have his day in court and let the legal process play out. Basically that was one of his main points about not actually making the final call on innocence or guilt.

So...

The right wingers and the orange baboon USE that fact that Mueller didn't indict (i.e. couldn't indict) as their main basis to keep floating the fake news that the baboon was cleared of all wrong doing. ***Hypocrisy Alert*** - I can guarantee HAD Muller "indicted" the "clown in the Oval office" the very first thing they would undoubtedly scream is how unfair and out of bounds that move would be since tRump would not have his day in court etc and that its Congress's job to do it. As usual having it both ways depending on which way the wind is blowing..

I hate these people.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bromwell (Reply #46)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:08 PM

57. Had Mueller recommended indictment of POTUS, he would have been called a rogue agent

who was defying the DOJ to which he reported.

The entire report would have been dismissed as an attempted coup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #57)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:19 PM

66. He got pretty close to doing exactly that.

He stated that the OLC memos prohibited him from indicting the president, leaving only one other way of addressing the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #66)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:53 PM

83. Not really

He certainly didn't say "leaving only one other way"... since he explicitly referred to possible indictments after a president leaves office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #83)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:55 PM

85. Except that statutes of limitations can run out while the president remains in office.

Most federal crimes have five-year statutes of limitations, so if a president gets a second term (God help us) he gets off scot-free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #85)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:25 PM

96. DOJ considered that when they originally made the determination

Courts have the ability to apply "equitable tolling" and allow the charges to proceed... and Congress has the ability to change the statute of limitations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #96)

Wed May 29, 2019, 04:05 PM

106. Yeah, I saw that - but there's no guarantee that would happen.

In fact, it probably wouldn't. A bill tolling statutes of limitation while a president is in office would never make it through this Senate or this president's veto. Maybe a court would apply equitable tolling, but would that decision be upheld by this Supreme Court?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bromwell (Reply #46)

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:13 PM

59. having it both ways

The Rethugs are the absolute MASTERS at that.

It is easier when the only true 'god' they worship at the end of the day is POWER

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:03 PM

87. Isn't that like talking out of both sides of your mouth?

A sitting president can't be indicted yet no man is above the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueinredohio (Reply #87)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:37 PM

101. No. Mueller is saying, "I myself can't indict him, even if he breaks the law."(nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread