Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bullshit on this "unconstitutional" reason for not indicting the p.o.s. [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)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
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
113 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Bullshit on this "unconstitutional" reason for not indicting the p.o.s. [View all]
Goodheart
May 2019
OP
he basically just said he will simply read from the report if he is called before Congress
Celerity
May 2019
#8
He's not. He's following the DOJ rules on not being allowed to indict a sitting POTUS. (nt)
ehrnst
May 2019
#28
No, not that bit. As Celerity said, he would basically only read from the report, if called before
OnDoutside
May 2019
#41
Rachel Maddow interviewed the author of the 1973 memo that established the principle
The Blue Flower
May 2019
#108
Again... no one, including Mueller said that this memorandum is "the Constitution"
ehrnst
May 2019
#110
It's DOJ policy. He made it clear that as a DOJ official, he's bound by DOJ policy. nt
Honeycombe8
May 2019
#4
That's the DOJ's opinion, which is why it's policy. He didn't express a personal opinion...
Honeycombe8
May 2019
#6
Give up. There are some here that refuse to accept anything other than Mueller GOP Corrupt
tymorial
May 2019
#52
Thank you for parsing this. Yes, he is referring to what the policy claims. nt
emmaverybo
May 2019
#80
yes! He ADDED the bloody unconstitutional part! DOJ 'policy' is NOT in the Constitution
Celerity
May 2019
#10
Neither is abortion, or the right to privacy, but both have been interpreted to have been covered
ehrnst
May 2019
#35
I think that really needs to be revisited, or if it indeed found to be valid, then a Constitutional
Celerity
May 2019
#47
That's all well and good, but during the time of the Mueller investigation the DOJ
ehrnst
May 2019
#48
so, as predicted, it truly is all up to Congress, and the Senate is in the tank for Rump
Celerity
May 2019
#50
Gee, I wonder how Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, & Thomas would rule on that?
Honeycombe8
May 2019
#11
Yes, absolutely, BEFORE Shitstain even has a CHANCE to get re-elected & stack the Supreme Court
InAbLuEsTaTe
May 2019
#111
Yes, the DOJ determined in 1973 that it would violate the *constitutional separation of powers*
ehrnst
May 2019
#38
I'm simply stating that the DOJ memo interprets it as unconstitutional and Barr stands by it.
ehrnst
May 2019
#45
There have been 19 years since that memo for an Attorney General to reverse that "official policy"
PoliticAverse
May 2019
#56
Since we're talking about a policy based on an (formalized) opinion from 19 years ago...
PoliticAverse
May 2019
#61
If the policy was incorrect it certainly should have been reversed. As to why - you are seeing why
PoliticAverse
May 2019
#72
I repeat... the ****DOJ*** believes it is a violation of the *constitutional separation of powers.*
ehrnst
May 2019
#49
Which is binding on all members of the DOJ unless/until it gets changed or overruled.
FBaggins
May 2019
#81
Yes, I have shown you. You wouldn't be saying otherwise if you knew what "implies" and "implicit"
Goodheart
May 2019
#71
I literally said that out loud in my car when he said it. It's not unconstitutional...
TCJ70
May 2019
#19
There is nothing in the Constitution that protects a right to abortion either, however
ehrnst
May 2019
#25
No, he said it was "long standing departmental policy" that says it is unconstitutional.
ehrnst
May 2019
#53
No, he said that the DOJ "opinion" says that- i.e., the policy reasoning (which would be wrong) said
coti
May 2019
#37
It's not 'bullshit' for Mueller to say that the DOJ policy is that it's unconstitutional.
ehrnst
May 2019
#62
Here's the OLC opinion, which I would suggest reading before opining.
The Velveteen Ocelot
May 2019
#76
What's the legal basis for the constitutionality of indicting a president?
The Velveteen Ocelot
May 2019
#84
Had Mueller recommended indictment of POTUS, he would have been called a rogue agent
ehrnst
May 2019
#57
Except that statutes of limitations can run out while the president remains in office.
The Velveteen Ocelot
May 2019
#85
No. Mueller is saying, "I myself can't indict him, even if he breaks the law."(nt)
ehrnst
May 2019
#101