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)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....
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