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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
36. The OLC letter was revised and updated by OLC at the very end of the Clinton Administration
Tue Jun 4, 2019, 10:54 AM
Jun 2019

And it can't be argued that it was "because their boss said so" - since Clinton was on his way out when it was finalized - and it came AFTER impeachment, so it wasn't intended to impact Clinton's rights.

Decided to look at the Constitution [View all] question everything Jun 2019 OP
Right, it is not in the Constitution 'as such,' and neither is the right to privacy. elleng Jun 2019 #1
Yeah. And if i were the subject of a DOJ investigation, Volaris Jun 2019 #14
Right, IF that life is mostly composed of criminal activitity. elleng Jun 2019 #15
Of course it doesn't. It relies on a 1973 rushed interpretation of "convenience" Read this hlthe2b Jun 2019 #2
Thanks, I will. question everything Jun 2019 #5
But the 1973 opinion was re-affirmed in 2000, at great length. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #7
Really, read the Lawfare Blog's thorough review hlthe2b Jun 2019 #9
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
I added a link to lawfare blogs review. Worth a look. hlthe2b Jun 2019 #11
And more importantly, Igel Jun 2019 #13
That decision was made by the OLC I think MiniMe Jun 2019 #3
According to the OLC opinion, prosecuting a sitting president would violate The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #4
It is interesting that we, here, can dive into the issue question everything Jun 2019 #6
underpants Jun 2019 #8
Wanted to add that, of course, we know that the right to privacy and perhaps other issues question everything Jun 2019 #12
Like you, I was startled to hear Mueller say something so brazenly false. lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #17
You're good! StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #22
Thank you, and likewise! The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #23
Thanks! StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #24
Agreed. TwilightZone Jun 2019 #44
You are correct. The Constitution explicitly says you can indict any lawbreaker in the Government. lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #16
Maybe you can quote where it says: former9thward Jun 2019 #21
Neither does mine. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #25
Here you go: lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #28
That language is often cited as the basis for impeach first, indict second onenote Jun 2019 #40
Where does it say that? StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #26
Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #29
No - it doesn't say what you're claiming StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #32
No, the language is inclusive, not exclusive. lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #33
The entire paragraph refers to the aftermath of impeachment and conviction StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #34
The key words are "the party convicted...." TwilightZone Jun 2019 #45
President Clinton was forced to testify to a Grand Jury MasonDreams Jun 2019 #18
"...but the Party convicted...." ColesCountyDem Jun 2019 #19
Sequence of events is irrelevant; Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 declares the two things independent. lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #30
The language is the very definition of "exclusive" StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #35
I meant exclusive/inclusive of liabilities. lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #39
Precisely. n/t ColesCountyDem Jun 2019 #42
It says no such thing. ColesCountyDem Jun 2019 #41
Exactly StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #43
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
Same situation, repeated. lagomorph777 Jun 2019 #37
He wasn't "in need" of protection two months before he left office StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #38
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Decided to look at the Co...»Reply #36