Posted on 01/03/2018 12:30:34 PM PST by jazusamo
In the meantime, you need put together an actual rational argument.
If the DOJ is Constitutional, so is the Special Counsel, which is entirely within DOJ rules
A constitutional officer or department is very capable of making an unconstitutional rule. It's been going on in earnest for 100+ years. If a DOJ rule is unconstitutional then that unconstitutional rule is null and void. Here, appointing a "special Prosecutor" to investigate the President including his campaign is prima facia violation of the Constitution (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 2, cl. 5; art. I, sec. 3, cl. 6 - Congress has SOLE power to impeach - which includes going after, investigating, and charging - and try ANY officer including the President).
You keep missing the point. It is the ROLE of the special prosecutor that is at issue here that triggers art. I, sec. 2, cl. 5 and art. I, sec. 3, cl. 6.
You persist in mis-stating facts. That’s not ad hominen.
“A loon, or a troll” are ad hominens. Please don’t post to me unless you actually have something intelligent to say that is reasonably on point and supported by some kind of rationale.
Un-confirmed (by the Senate) investigator/prosecutors are not per se unconsitutional. That question has been before SCOTUS. The current regulatoins look like little more than delegation of a sepcific task, with oversight by confirmed persons. The question is whether or not that protocol is being followed. For example, is the delegation really limited in scope?
This is where your narrative falls apart completely. These provisions of the U.S. Constitution apply to the President -- and nobody else. In this case, the role of the special counsel specifically identifies Trump campaign personnel as subjects of the investigation, and specifically limits the investigation to matters related to the 2016 campaign. This brings us to several logical points here:
1. Mueller can take no action against President Trump (this might be subject to some debate, as I am not sure about the legal questions about prosecuting a President for crimes allegedly committed before he assumed office).
2. With the exception of Mike Pence, there wasn't a single person involved in Trump's campaign who would be covered even by the most loose reading of the constitutional provisions limiting any action against the President to Congress.
Item #2 above is what I will use to demonstrate the absurdity of what you're posting here. If someone working for Donald Trump's campaign in 2016 had engaged in any kind of violation of Federal criminal laws (let's use Mike Flynn as an example), the U.S. Department of Justice would most certainly have the authority to investigate and prosecute the matter.
What you've done here is take the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that apply to an impeachment proceeding for the President of the United States and extended it to everyone who worked on his campaign before he was elected and inaugurated. If Mike Flynn committed a Federal crime while working for the Trump campaign or transition team, are you telling me that he can only be "prosecuted" through an impeachment proceeding in Congress? That's beyond silly. You won't find anyone who has spent more than 12 minutes in law school who agrees with you on that one.
Need more proof of that assertion. In many quarters people believe that Mueller's end game is to find impeachable offenses against and prosecute Trump.
If someone working for Donald Trump's campaign in 2016 had engaged in any kind of violation of Federal criminal laws (let's use Mike Flynn as an example), the U.S. Department of Justice would most certainly have the authority to investigate and prosecute the matter.
I'm sure that's true, but then you don't need to appoint a "special prosecutor" to do that. You simply arrest the guy - as long as he is NOT a federal official.
If you need more proof of what I've said, then that's really your problem. You can't sit here and present a scenario based on nothing more substantive than what "people believe in many quarters," then ask me to provide proof to counter these speculations.
Even though we disagree on the core points here, you did a fine job up to this point citing factual references to constitutional provisions to support your argument. Don't fall back now on speculation as if it carries any weight in a logical process.
I'm sure that's true, but then you don't need to appoint a "special prosecutor" to do that. You simply arrest the guy - as long as he is NOT a federal official.
The discretion to appoint a special prosecutor is not yours or mine. In a case of a potential conflict of interest, the first person who needs to consider a potential conflict is the one who is responsible for overseeing the prosecution. Complaining that a U.S. Justice Department official should NOT have recused himself over a potential conflict of interest is an ass-backwards view of the matter. The risks are all on one side in that case -- i.e., a legal process can be undermined when someone in a position of authority REFUSES to recuse himself, but faces no risk if he DOES recuse himself.
Supposedly (legal theoretically), before the law, a president isn't much special. The office doesn't come with a right to break the law. He would no doubt get deference as to timing of appearance, and is unlikely subject to arrest before being removed from office, but there are plenty of legal actions short of arrest. See Clinton v Jones, a president is subject to legal process even in a civil suit.
The most distilled point of appointing a special/independent investigator is to allow probing Trump personally. The allegations are against his campaign. If he didn't perpetrate an illegal act, maybe he conspired to do so, etc.
Action of Congress can remove and (optionally) bar the president from office, but can go no further as far as "remedies" goes. It is up to a prosecutor and prosecutorial discretion to pursue criminal charges. A criminal conviction doesn't remove from office, either! That is outside the power of the courts.
Plenty of Feds are arrested. The Constitutional prohibition against arrest goes to members of Congress, and hasn't been much tested. As for a president, I suspect some legal fiction that he can't arrest himself, so must be removed from office before he can be arrested. Otherwise, the legal theory is that everybody is subject to the same legal process. The legal practicality is that Feds willfully turn a blind eye to each other, for various reasons.
What kind of crazy idea is that? It is YOUR argument that Mueller is not appointed to go after Trump. Your argument consists of YOU supporting YOUR assertion with ample evidence and rationale that leads to a logical conclusion.Your assertion alone is no argument. It is called "conclusory".
There is critical constitutional distinction between any old federal employee and an Officer of the United States. Investigation of an Officer of the United States triggers art. I, sec. 2, cl. 5 and art. I, sec. 3, cl. 6.
It's based on several facts:
1. Mueller hasn't issued a single indictment of anyone that alleges criminal conduct related to the Trump campaign.
2. Mueller hasn't even interviewed Donald Trump.
3. AG Jeff Sessions originally recused himself from any matters related to the 2016 campaign because of his role in the 2016 campaign. This wasn't done to cover his own ass, but to avoid any situation where a conflict of interest would undermine any criminal prosecution of others outside the campaign.
Maybe I'm missing something here?
Yes you are and this whole thing is: articulated and specified reasonable suspicion (RS) or probable cause (PC) against named suspects.
1) NO RS or PC has been forthcoming regarding Trump's campaign. Certainly none prior to Mueller's appointment which is the standard of validation of pursing investigation and prosecution.
2) Who are the suspects? If Trump is one of them, this is an unconstitutional effort. If Trump is not one of them, why the special prosecutor? It should be a normal FBI investigation into criminal activity IF RS or PC is present.
From a criminal investigation and prosecution standpoint, so what? The fact that Congress has the impeachment power does not mean Congress has the criminal investigating and prosecution power. See Article II. Further, the president has the power to remove officers that haven't been impeached.
FWIW, Congress can impeach and remove judges too - the executive can't do that.
Sure there has been. Every report I've seen indicates situations where members of the Trump campaign -- Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn in particular -- had made multiple changes to their Federal financial disclosure forms over the course of the campaign. This, coupled with Flynn's extensive lobbying work for foreign interests since he left the Obama administration, would surely constitute a "probably cause" worthy of some level of scrutiny.
Who are the suspects? If Trump is one of them, this is an unconstitutional effort. If Trump is not one of them, why the special prosecutor? It should be a normal FBI investigation into criminal activity IF RS or PC is present.
See two particular "suspects" above -- both of whom would have interacted extensively with Sessions during the course of the campaign. Also, keep in mind that Sessions' recusal was necessary because he is likely to be a victim and a witness in potential criminal cases against individuals involved in what is now being revealed as an illicit covert surveillance effort by the Obama administration against the Trump team.
Read the sited text.
Regarding an Officer of the U.S., ONLY Congress may impeach AND remove. “Impeach” means “accusation” which comes as a result of investigation based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The executive branch is not authorized to do this regarding an Officer of the U.S. The executive branch may pursue crimes done by lower-level federal employees but not Officers.
Why can’t the FBI pursue suspects Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn through their normal means? Why a “special prosecutor”?
The difference between indictment and impeachment is the consequence. On conviction under impeachment, the penalty is removal from office and optionally barring from future office.
I agree that the executive branch lacks the power to impeach, by the way. Where we diverge is that you see the lack of impeachment power resulting in or somhow equivalent to a lack of indictment power.
Can the president remove an Officer of the US without impeachment?
Again, READ the previously sited constitutional texts.
Regarding an Officer of the U.S., ONLY Congress may impeach and try impeachments. And only upon impeachment and conviction may an Officer of the U.S. be removed (U.S. Const, art. II, sec. 4).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.