General Discussion

Celerity

(43,064 posts)

59. having it both ways

Wed May 29, 2019, 01:13 PM

May 2019

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

113 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bullshit on this "unconstitutional" reason for not indicting the p.o.s. [View all] Goodheart May 2019 OP

indeed, it is pure rot Celerity May 2019 #1

Subpoena his ass. Mueller doesn't get to dictate to Congress. OnDoutside May 2019 #2

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

A memorandum is not the Constitution The Blue Flower May 2019 #3

No one said that it was. (nt) ehrnst May 2019 #100

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

Mueller said more than that. That it's unconstitutional. Goodheart May 2019 #5

That's the DOJ's opinion, which is why it's policy. He didn't express a personal opinion... Honeycombe8 May 2019 #6

Mueller SAID IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Goodheart May 2019 #9

Here it is. Honeycombe8 May 2019 #13

Give up. There are some here that refuse to accept anything other than Mueller GOP Corrupt tymorial May 2019 #52

I guess we all need a dragon to slay when we feel powerless. ehrnst May 2019 #70

Yep. nt Honeycombe8 May 2019 #105

He said the OLC memo says it's unconstitutional. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #63

Thanks. Summarized in preface: elleng May 2019 #82

Here is what Mueller actually said, in context... ehrnst May 2019 #73

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

just wanted to say thank you for the clear, concise explanation as well Celerity May 2019 #65

You're welcome! ehrnst May 2019 #68

Whether or not he shares the opinion, he is bound by the rules. ehrnst May 2019 #30

He did D00ver May 2019 #103

Not indicting a sitting president needs to be tested in court meow2u3 May 2019 #7

Gee, I wonder how Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, & Thomas would rule on that? Honeycombe8 May 2019 #11

Who do you think has standing to "take this opinion to court"? onenote May 2019 #12

The AG makes that call for the DOJ. Why do you think that DT wanted Barr? (nt) ehrnst May 2019 #16

What do you think this SCOTUS would say if it came before them? ehrnst May 2019 #36

Yes it does!! InAbLuEsTaTe May 2019 #102

Before 'this' SCOTUS? You want a **SCOTUS ruling** that it IS constitutional? ehrnst May 2019 #109

Yes, absolutely, BEFORE Shitstain even has a CHANCE to get re-elected & stack the Supreme Court InAbLuEsTaTe May 2019 #111

Let me get this straight.... You want to guarantee that it will be permanent ehrnst May 2019 #112

All you have to do is READ what I said... it's all right to there. InAbLuEsTaTe May 2019 #113

Barr says it's unconstitutional ... GeorgeGist May 2019 #14

That's been the DOJ's opinion for decades. Honeycombe8 May 2019 #20

The DOJ said that he could not indict a sitting president. ehrnst May 2019 #15

"As per the Constitution"? Goodheart May 2019 #18

DOJ has that discretion. Barr is the head of the DOJ. ehrnst May 2019 #21

That's completely different than saying it's "unconstitutional." Cut the crap. nt coti May 2019 #24

Actually, no it's not. ehrnst May 2019 #26

Your posts are consistently dishonest and rhetorical, and this is no different. coti May 2019 #31

Yes, the DOJ determined in 1973 that it would violate the *constitutional separation of powers* ehrnst May 2019 #38

They don't make determinations of constitutionality, or make the law. coti May 2019 #40

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

Not clear on your point. ehrnst May 2019 #58

Since we're talking about a policy based on an (formalized) opinion from 19 years ago... PoliticAverse May 2019 #61

You just said that there were none that would have reversed it. ehrnst May 2019 #64

That's the point. n/t PoliticAverse May 2019 #67

So you are faulting Democratic POTUSes for not reversing it? ehrnst May 2019 #69

If the policy was incorrect it certainly should have been reversed. As to why - you are seeing why PoliticAverse May 2019 #72

So again... barn door, horse. ehrnst May 2019 #74

It's not "hindsight" as I've held the same opinion for a while. PoliticAverse May 2019 #94

So you're blaming Loretta Lynch? ehrnst May 2019 #95

19 years ago WAS the "other legal opinion" FBaggins May 2019 #98

Of course they do FBaggins May 2019 #78

There's only one person in this back and forth spouting "crap" ehrnst May 2019 #88

I repeat... "As per the Constitution"? Goodheart May 2019 #29

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

Indeed. But there seem to be a lot of people who need to slay a dragon ehrnst May 2019 #93

I'd be willing to bet... FBaggins May 2019 #97

But a frenzy is very validating to those in it. (nt) ehrnst May 2019 #99

Thank you for so patiently explaining happybird May 2019 #104

Indeed. ehrnst May 2019 #107

I also noticed that statement. shockey80 May 2019 #17

There is nothing in the Constitution about protecting privacy either. ehrnst May 2019 #22

Actually, there's PLENTY of implicit privacy protection in the Constitution. Goodheart May 2019 #32

Where is the protection of privacy implicit in the Constitution? ehrnst May 2019 #39

The Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches", for one Goodheart May 2019 #44

Nope. "Obviously implies" is not a direct protection. ehrnst May 2019 #51

Do you even know what the words "implies" and "implicit" mean? Goodheart May 2019 #54

I do. Nice red herring though. ehrnst May 2019 #60

Yes, I have shown you. You wouldn't be saying otherwise if you knew what "implies" and "implicit" Goodheart May 2019 #71

Nope. You just said it was "obviously implied" ehrnst May 2019 #75

Post removed Post removed May 2019 #90

So we have another red herring. ehrnst May 2019 #92

*According to the DOJ* it violates the constitutional separation of powers ehrnst May 2019 #42

Think of it this way: In Mueller's opinion, he is bound by DOJ policy. Honeycombe8 May 2019 #23

I have no idea what Mueller thinks of the DOJ policy ehrnst May 2019 #43

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

When who said it? Chuck Todd or Mueller? coti May 2019 #27

Actually, Mueller said "that is unconstitutional". Goodheart May 2019 #33

No, he said it was "long standing departmental policy" that says it is unconstitutional. ehrnst May 2019 #53

Mueller absolutely said it was unconstitutional to indict a sitting president: TCJ70 May 2019 #34

"under longstanding department policy" ehrnst May 2019 #55

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

I did read it. I find their opinion silly...also... TCJ70 May 2019 #77

It's an opinion. It's never been tested in court. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #79

Well, apparently in 2000 the DOJ made it so *in their policy.* ehrnst May 2019 #86

I've been aware of the opinion for quite some time, thank you. TCJ70 May 2019 #89

No one has said that it's unconstitutional. Who are you arguing with now? ehrnst May 2019 #91

What's the legal basis for the constitutionality of indicting a president? The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #84

Irony Alert! Bromwell May 2019 #46

Had Mueller recommended indictment of POTUS, he would have been called a rogue agent ehrnst May 2019 #57

He got pretty close to doing exactly that. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #66

Not really FBaggins May 2019 #83

Except that statutes of limitations can run out while the president remains in office. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #85

DOJ considered that when they originally made the determination FBaggins May 2019 #96

Yeah, I saw that - but there's no guarantee that would happen. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2019 #106

having it both ways Celerity May 2019 #59

Isn't that like talking out of both sides of your mouth? blueinredohio May 2019 #87

No. Mueller is saying, "I myself can't indict him, even if he breaks the law."(nt) ehrnst May 2019 #101