General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBullshit on this "unconstitutional" reason for not indicting the p.o.s.
Where does it say that?
Celerity
(42,632 posts)OnDoutside
(19,905 posts)Celerity
(42,632 posts)So fucked up.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)OnDoutside
(19,905 posts)Congress, so no point him appearing. That's not good enough. What about the Summary letter Barr put out ? What about the press conference where Barr said no collusion etc ? There are lots he should be made answer, and he doesn't get to dictate the terms.
The Blue Flower
(5,419 posts)That was a lie.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The Blue Flower
(5,419 posts)It was earlier this year. He said he was astonished that his OPINION now was considered to have the weight of constitutional law. He felt it should be suspended in this instance.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)He said that the DOJ policy was that it was "unconsitutional."
But I'll bite - who is doing the "lying" on this thread?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Goodheart
(5,264 posts)He obviously shares that opinion.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)his personal opinion wouldn't matter, anyway. As a DOJ official, he's bound by DOJ policy, he said.
We knew that an indictment of a sitting President would have to be decided by the S.Ct., so that was not going to be an option, realistically. (Gee, I guess what Roberts, Gorsuch, & Kavanaugh would find on that point of law?)
Goodheart
(5,264 posts)I heard you the first time.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)cnn.com
He was speaking of the DOJ policy. It is NOT up to Mueller to decide whether the DOJ is wrong in its policy. Not his job. No point in it, anyway. He is bound by DOJ policy. He didn't consider taking another avenue, or if that avenue was available. Because there was no indictment avenue available for him to even consider.
That was the entire point he was making.
He did say later that "it would require something other than a criminal proceeding" to hold the Prez accountable for obstruction of Justice, if he did obstruct.
Sum total is: in his opinion and in the opinion of the DOJ, a sitting President can't be indicted. The ultimate decider on that would be Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. What do you think they'll say the law is?
tymorial
(3,433 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The closest ones seem to be Pelosi and Mueller, unfortunately.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,267 posts)Here's what the OLC said: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf It would be a good idea to read it before opining on it.
elleng
(130,126 posts)'The indictm ent o r cnm inal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the
capacity o f the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.'
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html
To simply take "That is unconstitutional" out of that context is no different than the GOP trope where Obama said "You didn't build that," he was talking about the businesses that people built.
emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)Celerity
(42,632 posts)ffs
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)in the 14th amendment.
The DOJ has determined that indicting a sitting president is unconstitutional. Muller was bound by the rules of the DOJ. Barr totally agrees with this rule - why do you think Trump chose him?
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
Celerity
(42,632 posts)Amendment needs to be drafted to remedy this.
If not, then given a favourable political numeration in Congress (such as Trump has now) literally allows a POTUS to get away with ANYTHING from a legal standpoint. He literally could break any federal laws he could dream up and walk away scot-free. That is madness.
Quick question. Does that ruling preclude violations of state laws as well? Could he take an M27 IAR into a presser in say Florida, and just mow down 50 reporters, and then still walk away with no charges whilst POTUS?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Wed May 29, 2019, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)
holds that it's unconstitutional, and Mueller knew that there could be no screw ups, because there was a target on his head and on the report by the WH.
The report would have been jettisoned as a personal vendetta by Mueller, who was going rogue from the DOJ.
You would need to consult a constitutional law scholar on that. However, I think that if POTUS did mow down 50 reporters, removing him under the 25th amendment would be way quicker than impeachment.
Once he was out of office, then he could be indicted.
Celerity
(42,632 posts)Well, in 2020 it is up to the American voters. May we choose wisely.
Celerity
(42,632 posts)and all the attendant linkage as to why it exists
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Thank you for the appreciation.
There is a lot of hair on fire here at DU, and it's understandable. When emotions run high, the lizard brain takes over and the analytical part gets put on hold. It's up to leaders to keep a cool head and strategize. That's one reason that I'm glad we have Pelosi as Speaker at this point in History. Having grown up in a chaotic household, I learned early to remain very collected in the face of anger and instability. It was a survival mechanism that's served me well. It got me out of an armed carjacking with the car.
I've been fascinated with conflict management (as opposed to conflict resolution) lately. Took a workshop on it.
Not all conflict can be resolved, and if we aren't directing our anger in the right direction, we waste precious energy and time spinning our wheels.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Wed May 29, 2019, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)
Imagine what would have happened to the report if he had failed to cross a single t or dot a single i.
The entire thing would have been discredited - evidence and all.
And he said that the DOJ policy says that indictment of a sitting POTUS is unconstitutional.. Mueller offered no opinion as to its Constitutionality.
Maybe it was a mis speak. There is nothing in the constitution that allows the president NOT be prosecuted for breaking the law. Not sure how supposedly smart people can conflate that in anyway much less OLC. That was a political statement back in 70s. It has NO baring on actual law.
meow2u3
(24,743 posts)I don't recall the Supreme Court ruling on an opinion handed down by the Office of Legal Counsel. Someone needs to take this opinion to court to verify or refute this opinion.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)There's no point in going to the SCT on that question. A lot of time and expense for nothing.
And at the end of it, a Grand Jury might not even return an indictment.
onenote
(42,373 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That would make it permanent. You really want that???
Let's just impeach Clarence Thomas while we're at it, so Trump can replace him with a younger version.
People need to think about the consequences of what they want....
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)even MORE with radical Justices - and ALL the federal courts with right-wing judges - who will come down with a whole host of radical decisions on every legal issue we hold dear, including a woman's right to choose.
Yes INDEED, people need to think about the consequences of what they want... they need to think ahead!! Under no circumstances can we allow the Traitor-in-Chief to be re-elected and overwhelm the court system with more and more conservative nut-jobs that will negatively affect legal outcomes for decades to come. Better to take the chance NOW... and, if the Supreme Court DOES rule that a sitting president can't be indicted, then, so be it, that ruling will also apply to future, DEMOCRATIC Presidents.
Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)that a sitting POTUS can't be indicted?
Because that is what taking it to this SCOTUS would do.
Why?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)Do you need a link to the post?
Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)when you read between the lines.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)determinations that (1) the proper doctrinal analysis requires a balancing between the responsibilities of the President as the sole head of the executive branch against the important governmental purposes supporting the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President; and (2) the proper balance supports recognition of a temporary immunity from such criminal process while the President remains in office. Indeed, United States v. Nixon and Nixon v. Fitzgerald recognized and embraced the same type of constitutional balancing test anticipated in this Offices 1973 memorandum. Clinton v. Jones, which held that the President
is not immune from at least certain judicial proceedings while in office, even if those proceedings may prove somewhat burdensome, does not change our conclusion in 1973 and again today that a sitting President cannot constitutionally be indicted or tried.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/legacy/2014/01/29/op-olc-24.pdf
That opinion was written in 2006, during GWB's administration. But it was written by the AG, Janet Reno, a Clinton appointee.
If Trump doesn't get re-elected, he could be indicted then, if the statute of limitations hasn't run.
It could go to the S.Ct., maybe, but there's no point, as long as it's a Republican Court with the likes of extremists like Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh on the bench. That would make Roberts the deciding Justice, and although he may not an extremist, he's not a moderate.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The DOJ has the authority to make that call, as per the Constitution.
Goodheart
(5,264 posts)Cite the Article.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)As per the Constitution. Now, because the Constitution does not have a direct cite for everything (for instance, wire fraud), one has to take into account various decisions handed down the last few hundred years.
The entire purpose of SCOTUS is to interpret whether something is or is not constitutional, so if it was cut and dried for everything, we wouldn't need one SCOTUS judge, let alone nine. There would be no use for constitutional law classes or degrees.
So...This memorandum (and no I am not advocating it) from 2000 from the DOJ lays out their case for not indicting a sitting POTUS, with citations from the Constitution.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
coti
(4,612 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)This is the same response when I tell a RWer that abortion is protected by the 14th amendment, even though it's not directly addressed in the Constitution.
coti
(4,612 posts)The President is most definitely NOT protected from indictment by the Constitution, which is the point you're trying to- for SOME ridiculous reason- get to with your rhetoric. No, the only reason Mueller could not indict Trump- as Mueller himself said- was because of the thinly-reasoned DOJ policy.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
Why do you think I would be dishonest? Namecalling doesn't change the facts.
coti
(4,612 posts)Congress and the courts do.
Therefore, particularly given there is NOTHING in the Constitution stating that a President can't be indicted- and wouldn't that be a pretty glaring omission to not mention it if it had been the intention of the Consitutional framers that just one person was above the law?- it is NOT unconstitutional to indict a President.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Mueller was correct in stating that the DOJ considers indicting a sitting POTUS unconsitutional.
If you think that Mueller said that he thought it was unconstitutional, then you are wrong, and need to read what he said.
And what sinister motive do you think I have for correcting you on this?
Talk about attacking the messenger....
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)and none has yet done so (including the ones serving under a Democratic President).
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The current AG supports the case made in the memo. The last 19 years aren't relevant to that now.
Barn door, horse...
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)of course any formalized DOJ opinions since then would have been relevant.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)So.... that which would be relevant doesn't exist.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Why? Was there a pressing issue that I missed that would have merited revisiting it in the last two Democratic administrations?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)right now - so if Barr wanted to reverse the current policy he'd have to explicitly do so and it would be obvious to everyone that he was reversing the then current "official policy" and would have highlighted the fact that this is an unsettled constitutional issue.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And hindsight being 20/20 and all... you are blaming Obama for not making it a priority during a time when the GOP base was screaming for impeachment because 'lying about his birth certificate," and 'lying about being a Muslim" and "Jade Helm," and "wanting to pull the plug on Grandma with a power grab on medical care."
And you don't remember any situation where that would have been a pressing priority for a Democratic POTUS in the last 19 years. Particularly after a Democratic POTUS was impeached for lying about a blow job.
Got it.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)I'm not "blaming Obama", I do think an Attorney General in the last 19 years should have gotten another legal opinion as to the constitutionality of indicting a sitting President.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And how is that productive?
Also, what pressing need brought this up as a priority - what with all the spare time that administration had to fill....
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)This has been the unchanged opinion of the DOJ since 1973.
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)Where did you get that notion?
I find it interesting that you include Congress along with the courts.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)which often comes from embarassment at being corrected.
You may want to take a break.
Goodheart
(5,264 posts)Cite the Article.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)Mueller has no choice in that matter.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and Mueller was on TV, and said "unconstitutional," so a feeding frenzy began on him and anyone who tried to point out what was true and what wasn't concerning what he said.
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)... that Mueller has a better grasp on that topic than those in the "feeding frenzy".
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)happybird
(4,515 posts)Idk why so many are pissed at Mueller. The way I see it he did a thorough investigation and he found and detailed 10 instances of obstruction of justice. That's a big effin' deal. That's where his job ends. It's now up to the House to take that evidence and start impeachment proceedings- which they are doing, it just takes a while to do it RIGHT. They only get one shot at it. People need to practice some damn patience. It's like they think a POTUS can be impeached in 60 days or less. Smh.
And, Mueller supposedly passed on info to NY about financial crimes, so we'll eventually see if anything comes of that.
Mr. Mueller is an extremely smart, experienced professional. IMO, he did a great job under very difficult circumstances. You are absolutely right about the target on his back and what would had happened had he not crossed one single t.
It's not his fault Senate of full of corrupt trumphumpers. It's up to We, the People to toss them out on their ears in the next elections.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Thank you for your kind words.
shockey80
(4,379 posts)There is nothing in the constitution that says that.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The Constitution has been interpreted for centuries. I tried to explain that to right wingers for years on abortion, and never thought I'd have to be explaining that concept on DU...
The DOJ has interpreted the Constitution in this way (and no, I am not advocating for it)
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
Goodheart
(5,264 posts)On the other hand, there is NOTHING that implicitly says a sitting president can not be indicted.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Can you give the cite?
How about abortion?
Goodheart
(5,264 posts)obviously IMPLIES that people have a right to privacy. If not, there would never be anything unreasonable about a search.
The First Amendment's protection against government restrictions against religion IMPLIES that such thought is a private matter.
The Third Amendment's protection against soldiers in civilian homes IMPLIES that a household is a private matter.
And so forth.
Shall I go on?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Not mentioned anywhere.
Medical privacy was not even a concept then, therefore it wasn't directly protected in the constitution. It was interpreted as a protection under the 14th amendment in 1973.
I suppose you think that SCOTUS isn't necessary, since determining if something is or isn't constitutional is really just a matter of what is "obvious?"
Do go on.
Goodheart
(5,264 posts)Consult your dictionary.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You still haven't shown me where protection for privacy and abortion are spelled out.
Nor have you explained why we even need a SCOTUS, if everything is so 'obvious' in the Constitution.
200+ years of judicial interpretation all for nothing, eh?
Just like the tea partiers who all became constitutional 'scholars' overnight when Obama was elected.
Goodheart
(5,264 posts)mean.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Which precludes any need for a SCOTUS if that's how 'obvious' the Constitution is. You haven't shown me where medical privacy/abortion are protected explicitly. This is like arguing with a Tea Partier who is convinced that abortion HAS to be directly, literally protected in the Constitution, or else it's not protected, and they've read the Constitution, so they know.....
It's an evasion because you were corrected, and I'm assuming embarrased about it.
Response to ehrnst (Reply #75)
Post removed
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Did you find a sale?
"Dismissed for lack of smarts."
You really are embarassed, aren't you?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
Is that clearer?
Again... there is also nothing in the Constitution that implicitly protects privacy or abortion either. Or wire fraud.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)And in his opinion, DOJ policy is correct. That it's unconstitutional.
So you have the Special Counsel's office saying that, and the DOJ/AG's office saying that. It would take the S.Ct. or a constitutional amendment to change that, neither of which is possible at this time.
That avenue is closed. We live in a Republican country right now, and an extremist one, at that. The extremist Justices on the S.Ct., and an extremist Republican Senate make it foolish to spend the time and millions it would take to take it to the S.Ct.
Even if you get a decision saying Mueller isn't bound by DOJ or that a sitting Presiden can be indicted, Mueller isn't going to indict Trump. He thinks the avenue for obstruction is something other than the criminal avenue.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)other than it is the DOJ policy, and he is bound by it as the special counsel.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...and it's bullshit to suggest that it is. It's stupid, ignorant DOJ policy that literally puts the president above the law.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)an interpretation of the 14th amendment was determined to include medical privacy.
The DOJ has interpreted the Constitution as supporting a ban on indicting a sitting POTUS. No, I am not advocating for this.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
coti
(4,612 posts)Mueller didn't say it was unconstitutional, he said it was DOJ policy.
Goodheart
(5,264 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html
You're welcome.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The departmental policy is what states it is unconstitutional.
He is bound by departmental policy.
Is that clearer?
coti
(4,612 posts)that the process "requires" impeachment, though I can't even say that that's necessarily true. Regardless, he didn't state it as truth, but as part of the policy reasoning he had to follow.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)In fact, he was pointing out that it was his reason for not indicting DT, even though they had no reason to believe that he was innocent of crimes.
He was suggesting that his hands were tied, and this was the only thing he could do, and still be within the rules set up by the DOJ.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,267 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...since when do OLC opinions make something unconstitutional?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,267 posts)However, this Supreme Court would almost certainly agree with the reasoning set forth in the opinion. You could disagree with the opinion - some legal scholars do, too - but I wouldn't call it silly.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Shoot the messenger all you like, and call the DOJ "silly," but that's what we're dealing with.
Just because you didn't know about something, doesn't render it non-existent.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)And I didn't call the entire DOJ silly...just this opinion. Regardless, this OLC document does not make something unconstitutional. That may be their opinion, but that doesn't make it so. That's up to the Supreme Court.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That OLC document makes the policy at the DOJ at this time. That's all I've stated. You're simply repeating what I've been saying for awhile now.
If you want to fight about whether indicting a sitting POTUS is constitutional, then find someone who thinks it is unconstitutional. Sorry to disappoint.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,267 posts)The OLS opinion says it would violate the Constitutional principle of separation of powers. What's the argument and legal authority for holding that it doesn't? Something more compelling than "bullshit"? If I'm going to the Supreme Court with this I want something better than "bullshit."
Bromwell
(123 posts)Mueller says he couldn't/wouldn't indict b/c its not fair to make that accusation of a person who can't then have his day in court and let the legal process play out. Basically that was one of his main points about not actually making the final call on innocence or guilt.
So...
The right wingers and the orange baboon USE that fact that Mueller didn't indict (i.e. couldn't indict) as their main basis to keep floating the fake news that the baboon was cleared of all wrong doing. ***Hypocrisy Alert*** - I can guarantee HAD Muller "indicted" the "clown in the Oval office" the very first thing they would undoubtedly scream is how unfair and out of bounds that move would be since tRump would not have his day in court etc and that its Congress's job to do it. As usual having it both ways depending on which way the wind is blowing..
I hate these people.....
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)who was defying the DOJ to which he reported.
The entire report would have been dismissed as an attempted coup.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,267 posts)He stated that the OLC memos prohibited him from indicting the president, leaving only one other way of addressing the problem.
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)He certainly didn't say "leaving only one other way"... since he explicitly referred to possible indictments after a president leaves office.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,267 posts)Most federal crimes have five-year statutes of limitations, so if a president gets a second term (God help us) he gets off scot-free.
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)Courts have the ability to apply "equitable tolling" and allow the charges to proceed... and Congress has the ability to change the statute of limitations.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,267 posts)In fact, it probably wouldn't. A bill tolling statutes of limitation while a president is in office would never make it through this Senate or this president's veto. Maybe a court would apply equitable tolling, but would that decision be upheld by this Supreme Court?
Celerity
(42,632 posts)The Rethugs are the absolute MASTERS at that.
It is easier when the only true 'god' they worship at the end of the day is POWER
blueinredohio
(6,797 posts)A sitting president can't be indicted yet no man is above the law.