And Hoping Haters gonna hope and hate.
Mueller admits: Can’t Indict a Sitting President
- Thread starter bone
- Start date
And Hoping Haters gonna hope and hate.
Please Mr. Big Swinging Dick Mueller, indict Trump.
There will be blood on the floor, and it will be yours.
There will be blood on the floor, and it will be yours.
This is a rabbit hole, but an interesting one.
The department also had a standing policy not to discuss investigations of political figures during elections and Comey totally ignored that.
So, administrative policies can be repealed or broken.
Sessions has no say over Mueller. So that stop gap is null.
Now onto the meat of the issue, can a president be indicted? It’s iffy. The basis of the thinking is a president is too important to the executive branch to have to deal with legal matters. But, we know presidents can be charged, Andrew Jackson, I believe, got a speeding citation for driving a wagon too fast in DC and Clinton faced civil issues. Each had to devote some time while in office to personal legal matters. One from an issue while in office the other prior to assuming office.
To make this more complicated Archibald Cox chose to name Nixon as an “unindicted co-conspirator”, not “unindictable”.
Now let’s put the unindictable standard to a legal challenge. What if Donald Trump shot Robert Mueller on the White House lawn in cold blood? Would the president be above the law in that situation? And, if the president can be indicted in one matter, why not in another matter? Where would we draw the line if a line was appropriate?
The truth is this presumption of implied power of the presidency has never been legally tested. Until then, it’s all theories.
Last edited:
Nope, sorry but that is not the meat of issue at this point.
Departmental lawyers have already established their position on the issue and it has been converted into departmental policy and order to all employees.
Mueller's appointment submits him to departmental policy. And Rosenswamp's job is to oversee his conduct in at least a broad sense, and certainly in regard to an issue of this scope.
If the Department suddenly decides that it has an established policy that does applies UNLESS YOU WANT TO PROSECUTE TRUMP. Then that becomes the "meat of the issue.
As I said yesterday, the DOJ/Rosenswamp are already poised to here more than they want to from the IG. If you want to add another YUGE issue then try to pull off this stunt of ignoring established departmental policy for political purposes.
Keep in mind, that I am not one who is feverishly defending against the indictment and just saying what I want to hear. Nothing would excite me more than to watch Trump be indicted and then to see Mueller get his fucking face kicked in as has happened so many times before. But as much as I would like to see that, Rosenswamp's arse is already in a sling for messing with departmental policies and procedures to help Hillary and crucify Trump, and he cannot set that departmental indictment policy aside without stepping into to it further- while the IG is on his arse and while members of Congress are talking about impeaching him. Or, even better, please do it Rod. I will watch.
Please Mr. Big Swinging Dick Mueller, indict Trump.
There will be blood on the floor, and it will be yours.
Indict Trump for what?
You guys have gotten yourselves into a tizzy over this Mueller thing. You’re so worried about Trump himself you’re totally ignoring there’s a whole great big investigation into the Russian-Trump campaign connection.
The Senate has affirmed the intelligence findings of the Russian government helped Trump in the election and hurt Clinton. Mueller’s job is to find out who did what and charge them. To date, he is moving quickly and doing a very good job.
Now you’re worried about your possibly ill gotten political gains because Trump May be caught up in this mess and/or obstructed justice to protect people involved. But, Trump is not the be all end all of this.
I read someone here writing that if Mueller doesn’t charge Trump then this investigation was an “abject failure.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The only way it could be an abstract failure would be if it was concluded prematurely without a complete and thorough investigation.
FYI: Clinton’s use of her email was totally in line with state department policy.
"Now let’s put the unindictable standard to a legal challenge. What if Donald Trump shot Robert Mueller on the White House lawn in cold blood? Would the president be above the law in that situation? And, if the president can be indicted in one matter, why not in another matter? Where would we draw the line if a line was appropriate?
The truth is this presumption of implied power of the presidency has never been legally tested. Until then, it’s all theories."
Why? Because the shooting would have actual evidence, something which is sorely lacking in the alleged Russian conspiracy.
One notable point: it took Archibald Cox nine months to get from his appointment to naming Nixon as unindicted co-conspirator. And he had actual evidence.
We don’t know what Mueller has. And, again, Trump is not the be all, end all of the investigation.
Again, we don’t know what Mueller has.