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: Decided to look at the Constitution [View all]Igel
(35,307 posts)13. And more importantly,
it's the code of conduct that he agreed to, the code of conduct expected of him by his employer, and the code of conduct that the authority of the executive branch has set up.
In other words, Mueller may derive authority as a prosecutor from his position, but his position is circumscribed by a set of rules and regulations that govern that position.
It's not a question of whether it is *required* by the Constitution; it's a question of whether the restriction is *prohibited* by the Constitution. It isn't.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
45 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
Right, it is not in the Constitution 'as such,' and neither is the right to privacy.
elleng
Jun 2019
#1
Of course it doesn't. It relies on a 1973 rushed interpretation of "convenience" Read this
hlthe2b
Jun 2019
#2
I don't either, just saying that it's a good thing it hasn't gone to the Supreme Court
The Velveteen Ocelot
Jun 2019
#10
According to the OLC opinion, prosecuting a sitting president would violate
The Velveteen Ocelot
Jun 2019
#4
Wanted to add that, of course, we know that the right to privacy and perhaps other issues
question everything
Jun 2019
#12
You are correct. The Constitution explicitly says you can indict any lawbreaker in the Government.
lagomorph777
Jun 2019
#16
The entire paragraph refers to the aftermath of impeachment and conviction
StarfishSaver
Jun 2019
#34
Sequence of events is irrelevant; Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 declares the two things independent.
lagomorph777
Jun 2019
#30
I believe the view of the DOJ is that it would be unconstitutional for the department to indict
Nitram
Jun 2019
#20
The OLC opinions aren't stupid, despite the claims of some, but even so it seems to me
The Velveteen Ocelot
Jun 2019
#27
The view of the DOJ is that it would be unconstitutional - because their boss Nixon said so in 1974.
lagomorph777
Jun 2019
#31
The OLC letter was revised and updated by OLC at the very end of the Clinton Administration
StarfishSaver
Jun 2019
#36