Posted on 05/16/2018 6:33:41 PM PDT by Kaslin
Ever since Donald J. Trump won a stunning victory against Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, the Left was convinced there was something at play to cause this event. How could the politically tone deaf Hillary lose? How could a woman with no charisma, economic agenda, or political skill lose? How could a woman who wrote off half the country as deplorable racists lose? You know the answer to this, but for liberals it had to be the Russians. The mocking of the GOP over Russia being our biggest geopolitical rival was relegated to the trashcan. Now, it was the neo-red scare, a Russophobia that was both unhinged and unwarranted. Democrats now considered any contact with a Russian an act of treason. If you had Stoli vodka, it was treason. It was totally insane, but also insanely entertaining.
Did the Russians try and interfere in our elections? Probably—but nowhere near the level of sophistication that the Left thinks caused Clinton to lose. There was no altering of vote tallies. It was mostly shoddy memes run by Facebook, ad campaigns that devoted little money given the length of the campaign and how much money that was spent during this period.
Still, there were allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin to tilt the election. In July of 2016, the FBI began its counterintelligence investigation into the matter. This probe cited the Trump dossier, a piece of partisan campaign literature compiled by former MI6 spook Christopher Steele, which was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democrats. The Clinton camp contracted Fusion GPS, who then hired Steele to dig up dirt on Trump.
The Left was bracing for collusion to be confirmed. They wanted all the nastiness to come out in order to stop Trump. The Resistance waited in eager anticipation of something devastating, something impeachable to drop. Nothing ever did. It was an endless string of nothing burgers. Now, we’re being told that Special Counsel Robert Meuller, who took over the investigation in May, told the president’s legal team that Trump cannot be indicted; citing a DOJ memo that stated it would be an unconstitutional act, preventing the executive from efficiently carrying out its duties (via Fox News):
President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, told Fox News on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller has told the president's legal team he will follow Justice Department guidance and not seek an indictment against Trump.
Giuliani, himself a former federal prosecutor and mayor of New York City, also told Fox News that Mueller's investigators have not responded to five information requests from the president's team. That has forced Trump's legal team to push off making a decision about whether the president will sit for an interview with the special counsel -- a decision they had hoped to reach by Thursday.
The precedent that federal prosecutors cannot indict a sitting president is laid out in a 1999 Justice Department memo. Giuliani told Fox News that Mueller has no choice but to follow its guidance.
"This case is essentially over," Giuliani said. "They're just in denial."
One way to break the news to the Resistance that 2 years of leaks and reporting to the contrary, they've got nothing. https://t.co/Y3m7otVYyi— Mollie (@MZHemingway) May 16, 2018
NEW: Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has informed President Donald Trump's attorneys that they have concluded that they cannot indict a sitting president, according to the President's lawyer. @DanaBashCNN scoops https://t.co/eO63TfGY5p— Yashar Ali ?? (@yashar) May 16, 2018
Rudy Giuliani tells @FoxNews that Robert Mueller told @realDonaldTrump legal team two weeks ago that he will abide by DOJ guidelines that a President cannot be indicted. Giuliani said Mueller has no choice but to honor a 1999 Clinton-era memo— John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) May 16, 2018
In early April, Mueller reportedly told the president that while he is under investigation, he’s not the target of a criminal probe. Later in the month, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also told the president he had nothing to worry about concerning the Russia probe, or the investigation into his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who is under the microscope for possible bank fraud and FEC violations concerning payment he made to porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election over her alleged affair with Trump back in 2006.
Now, over at NBC News, they said an exception can be given:
During the final months of the administration of former President Bill Clinton in 2000, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel said in a memo that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would be unconstitutional."
Neal Katyal, acting solicitor general in the administration of former President Barack Obama — the administration's top courtroom lawyer — wrote the current special counsel regulations as a young lawyer in Clinton's Justice Department in 1999. They specify that a special counsel "shall comply" with the policies of the Justice Department, for whom Mueller works.
Katyal said on MSNBC's "The Beat With Ari Melber" in February that means that Mueller is bound by the 2000 Justice Department memo but that he "can seek exceptions."
"This old opinion from 20 years ago does preclude, in general, the Justice Department from indicting a sitting president for constitutional reasons," Katyal said. "But an exception can be given."
I doubt that such an exception will be executed in this affair. So, overall—this could be the ballgame. Concerning Congress, they can impeach. And the Democrats are sure positioning themselves to do just that if they retake the House. The base wants it. The progressive wing of the party wants it. The low energy exhibited from leadership on this front is for political purposes. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) was forced to resign over sexual misconduct claims last year. He was a ranking Democrat on the House judiciary Committee. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), a reported constitutional scholar, has taken his placein the chance that there’s a showdown between Congress and the White House. They’re still getting ready for that fight. How can we avid it? It’s only if the GOP votes and wins the 2018 midterms.
So, is this game over? Yeah, it looks like it could be. You lose again, Democrats.
At this point I’d almost like to see action taken against Trump. It would be good to see what Trump’s supporters/America’s patriots would do. Maybe we’re not worth saving.
Incorrect. A sitting president cannot be indicted. That would require the people who are his subordinates to prosecute him and that was not allowed in the constitution.
The effective remedy the founders provided was impeachment.
This is about the midterm elections.
That's where I'm at.
But will that be enough? Billy Boy was impeached, but he didn’t resign.
Show me in the Constitution where a subordinate in the executive branch has the power to indict his superior. Who does that subordinate answer to, if not the chief executive.
It’s absurd to interpret the Constitution as creating a class of nobility that’s above the law.
You're setting up a straw man fallacy. Nobody is saying that the president is above the law. The president can be impeached, removed and then indicted.
The idiots on FOX radio “news” mentioned this story, then added that “19 people have been indicted and four have pleaded guilty.”
Of course, crappy FOX radio news didn’t bother to mention that this had nothing to do with the 2016 presidential election.
Manafort’s involvement with Ukraine goes back to 2005, an entire decade BEFORE Donald Trump came down the escalator at Trump Tower and announced his intention to run for president in 2016.
There’s also that pesky lack of real evidence thing stopping it. Democrat wet dreams and feeling don’t count as such, but they’re working on that.
Interesting that they (Mueller, CNN, ABC, NYT . . . ) spun their wheels for two years and that memo has existed the entire time. There is no point for a prosecutor if there can’t be an indictment. That’s what prosecutors do.
So this was all about the drip drip drip and to see if they could dig up something (under the pretense of indictment) that would impeach.
And there’s a law stating that a crime needs to be established before appointing a special counsel, yet here we are...
Take everything mueller and the corrupt state say with a pillar of salt. The rule of law is DEAD—This is a COUP.
This helps the Dems. The new narrative: “Despite the overwhelming evidence of Trump’s collusion, this arcane rule protects him from being indicted”
He was impeached by the House but the Senate didn’t convict him.
That’s the reason why we have elections every 4 years and congress as an impeachment check. Too much skullduggery can happen when you allow extra-constitutional checks on the POTUS by un-elected bureaucrats and the like...See Mueller and crew.
Exactly. So I guess the difference now is that there might be enough rinos/#nevertrump/swamp critters to convict if they were somehow able to pull off impeachment.
Exactly. So I guess the difference now is that there might be enough rinos/#nevertrump/swamp critters to convict if they were somehow able to pull off impeachment.
Hey Trump, you horse's a$$. Get someone in DOJ to clean up this garbage.
There was NOTHING to INDICT!!!!!!! NOTHING!!
On your last two points, yes and yes.
(not disagreeing with anything, mind you)
There is no language that disallows it. Prove me wrong: Cite the Article, section and clause. The only thing like that you'll find prohibits arresting members of Congress.
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.