"Constitutional" and "conflict of interest" are entirely different notions.
There is nothing unconsitutional about investigating a president or anybody else. Happens all the time. Clinton was sued for sex harrassment (Jones v. Clinton) and the case went to trial. So, I'm not sure what your basis is for asserting the investigation is unconstitutional, and leave it to you to articulate your beef.
Conflict of interest is inherent in a federal criminal investigation of a president. Not so much if say the state of Missouri indicted him for murder, becuase Trump doesn't control the AG in the state of Missouri. When there is an allegation of criminal wrongdoing, the system will try to produce "objective and impartial officials" so the people will have faith that the system isn;t corrupt. How would you feel if AG Podesta was in charge of investigating Clinton? You'd know the fix was in.
-- IMO, this is an absolute bad-faith attempt by the Left to defang Trump and distract from the DNC's OWN mountain range of crimes and misdeeds. --
Totally agreed. It needs to be shut down. It will be shut down. I'm advocating for a process where the people who instigated this war, Comey, Clapper, many others in the government, and the press, I want them to be engaged in the battle, defeated, and disgraced.
The ‘republican’ controlled Congress are either complicit in this mockery of the law or they are too stupid to be in control.
They all should have enough rope to hang themselves
Does Wray get sworn in Monday or Tuesday ?
Then McCabe and company can be relieved of duty?
Anyone know what the JULY 27 incident is all about? Keep seeing that date bantered about as a REALLY BIG DAY!
Generally, the only valid federal act is that which is authorized by the Constitution. Generally, if it is not in the Constitution it is not a valid federal act. As far as impeachment, the Constitution is silent about how to arrive at impeachment proceedings but it does say the House has sole authority to impeach. "We've always done it this way", is not necessarily the standard for validity.
Although it makes sense for the DOJ to investigate federal officers in other branches because there would not be prima facia conflict of interest, the Constitution certainly doesn't say the DOJ which is in the executive branch and under the President, should investigate the President or executive branch officers.
First of all, what legitimately triggers impeachment (charges)? I surmise probable cause (PC). But by what means is PC determined? Not sure. In regular police work, usually there reasonable suspicion to launch an investigation that may lead to PC and custodial interrogation or arrest. If the suspect was a federal officer in the executive branch, the only non-self-conflicting branch to do all this stuff would seem to be the House, I suppose under the heading of their "sole power" to impeach. The Senate would be the trying court so I don't think it would be the Senate. Not the Supreme Court. They don't investigate.
I think we have an open issue of who should investigate reasonable suspicion or PC with the President and possibly other federal officers in the executive branch. I think constitutionally and logically that task would probably fall to the House. Of course potential political shenanigans abound there too, but at least there's not prima facia conflict of interest.