I guess Trump is gonna get questioned by Mueller

[UsualName]

You conveniently do not mention the fact that - although there are varying opinions about whether a president can be indicted- that the Justice Departments own internal opinion is that a president cannot be indicted so the DOJ has a written established rule against indicting a president. Note further, that Mueller is not an independent counsel withing the meaning of the indendent counsel act (which expired) and is not an independent counsel appointed by Congress. He was appointed as an independent counsel under the authority of the DOJ and reports Rosenstein and is fully bound by DOJ rules.

So to indict Trump would be yet another GLARING example of where the DOJ set aside/violated established department rules for the purpose of getting Trump. Not pretty.

Don't ever, ever forget though that I am 100% in favor of Mueller going for it.

In any case, indicting Trump only gets him so much anyway. He gets a chance to hear Trump claim Executive Privilege and/or the Fifth and then say nothing. So if he already has sufficient evidence to make his case without Trump walking in to the trap then he should go for it. If he is using the indictment threat to compel testimony that he could not get because Trump refuses to sit with him, well that is a dicey move. Trump shows up and pleads Executive Privilege at the grand jury and then Mueller is locked into a legal process where it is full legal from then on out. And he doesnt have the evidence or the law on his side on all the various appeals. If he does, let's go pussy. Make my day!!!

Hold on for one second, there is a DOJ guideline not a rule. Which is an opinion of legal counsel but lacks a legal ruling. The thing of it is there is not a legal ruling because the issue is one of the most singular constitutional questions there is.

I tend to agree with the opinion that mueller is a company man and he will abide by the guidelines but if, IF we are in a situation where a sitting president conspired against the American people to attain the office of the presidency then we are in a whole new world. That charge is much more severe than perjury or obstruction and Mueller and Rosenstein will have a harder time with the guidelines and may rightly pursue a legal remedy.

 

[UsualName]

To indict Trump there would have to be an independent special prosecutor appointed. The DOJ couldn't do it (Conflict of interest). I don't think Trump will be indicted until he is impeached and removed from office, and maybe never. That will depend on what Pence's political ambitions are. He might be subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury however. I doubt it though. I think Mueller will turn his report over to Congress and let them decide how to proceed. Not until after the new Congress is seated however. Without a pardon from Pence, Mr. Trump is in a heap of trouble. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg .

Passing the buck to Congress is a cop out. There’s no way the framers intended to protect a sitting president that illegally gained the office. The house as it is right now will not impeach Trump if he shot someone on the White House lawn.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Hold on for one second, there is a DOJ guideline not a rule. Which is an opinion of legal counsel but lacks a legal ruling. The thing of it is there is not a legal ruling because the issue is one of the most singular constitutional questions there is.

I tend to agree with the opinion that mueller is a company man and he will abide by the guidelines but if, IF we are in a situation where a sitting president conspired against the American people to attain the office of the presidency then we are in a whole new world. That charge is much more severe than perjury or obstruction and Mueller and Rosenstein will have a harder time with the guidelines and may rightly pursue a legal remedy.

It is part of the DOJ Manual which provides the operating rules for prosecutors - although not a rule binding upon the public under administrative rulemaking authority- if that helps you to do your crabwalk in any way......which it does not.

And my point stands: There is a DOJ departmental rule binding on prosecutors that says that a prosecutors will not indict a sitting president. Because it is a rule the department can change that but my point remains the same: ie. to try to indict Trump would just create another example where the DOJ set aside existing rules and policies to go after Trump. You can get away with it but it what it is if it is done. Another "HQ Special" and "Insurance Policy" suddenly made available just for Trump.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Passing the buck to Congress is a cop out. There’s no way the framers intended to protect a sitting president that illegally gained the office. The house as it is right now will not impeach Trump if he shot someone on the White House lawn.

I don't think the Framers exactly had the DOJ in mind - versus Congress- for initiating the action- considering that there was no DOJ until it was created by Congress after the Civil War- 1870 or something like that.

 

[UsualName]

I don't think the Framers exactly had the DOJ in mind - versus Congress- for initiating the action- considering that there was no DOJ until it was created by Congress after the Civil War- 1870 or something like that.

There were laws and prosecutors in America before the DOJ.

 

[UsualName]

It is part of the DOJ Manual which provides the operating rules for prosecutors - although not a rule binding upon the public under administrative rulemaking authority- if that helps you to do your crabwalk in any way......which it does not.

And my point stands: There is a DOJ departmental rule binding on prosecutors that says that a prosecutors will not indict a sitting president. Because it is a rule the department can change that but my point remains the same: ie. to try to indict Trump would just create another example where the DOJ set aside existing rules and policies to go after Trump. You can get away with it but it what it is if it is done. Another "HQ Special" and "Insurance Policy" suddenly made available just for Trump.

Oh, make no mistake doing the right thing can look bad and takes courage oftentimes but it’s still the right thing.

Like I said the perjury and obstruction stuff I honestly doubt mueller and Rosenstein would seek prosecution but using illegal means to obtain the office of the president is a whole other level that may be rightly handled in the courts.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

There were laws and prosecutors in America before the DOJ.

Correct and I have pointed that out before.

Trump is actually the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States- not the Attorney General. All the lefties make the case that the Constitution prohibits the President from becoming involved in any justice department or law enforcement activities or "interfering" by letting his views and goals be known. No it doesn't and there was a hundred year period where the president ran those operations directly. Congress can assist the president by creating the justice department but cannot take that core power away from him as he is required by the Consitution as President to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed."

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Oh, make no mistake doing the right thing can look bad and takes courage oftentimes but it’s still the right thing.

.

Yeh sure. Same argument that Strzok, McCabe, Comey, Page, Ohr etc make. They allegedly have a duty to make sure that president that they know is right for this country ends out in power and the president duly elected by the ignorant peasants and deplorable is removed through their special duty to do so.

Sometimes those weaknesses in the Constitution can be fixed with a quick meeting out on the tarmac.

 

[UsualName]

Sometimes those weaknesses in the Constitution can be fixed with a quick meeting out on the tarmac.

Or they can be exploited with a quick meeting in Trump Tower.

 

[piezoe]

Passing the buck to Congress is a cop out. There’s no way the framers intended to protect a sitting president that illegally gained the office. The house as it is right now will not impeach Trump if he shot someone on the White House lawn.

You're right and wrong. Of course the Framers did not intend to protect a sitting President that illegally gained the office. But of course it is highly unlikely the Founders envisioned a Congress such as the current one. Passing the buck to Congress is the only way Mueller can proceed if we are still undr the rule of law. He isn't an 'independent prosecutor', and DOJ can't prosecute their boss. If Mueller's investigation turns up evidence that the President committed serious crimes, and I am confident it will, he has to go to Congress rather than DOJ, because the President will be unenthusiastic about seeing himself prosecuted. The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch.*

For that reason Mueller will wait until after the Mid-term election and then let the chips fall where they may, unless of course his hand is forced.
________
* Regarding the Presidents lack of enthusiasm, you should feel confident in trusting me.