General Discussion

FBaggins

(26,721 posts)

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

Reply to PoliticAverse (Reply #94)

Wed May 29, 2019, 02:35 PM

May 2019

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

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