• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Mueller investigation

blastula said:
No, it's actually the law then once decided in court.
Click to expand...

Sigh. No, it's not. Only Congress can make a law. What you mean is that it becomes a precedent, which is not the same thing.

Here's the Supreme Court's own explanation (emphasis mine):

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
...
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
Click to expand...

Iow, they don't make laws; they determine whether or not a law (or executive action) has violated the Constitution and if so they invalidate it, but that is not the same thing as establishing something.

There is no decided law right now that says whether or not a president can pardon themself.
Click to expand...

Again, not a law, unless you're referring to the Constitution, which is the highest law and it does, in fact, prevent it for the reasons already given. You need to understand what "plenary" power is. In this case, there are other sections of the Constitution--such as the impeachment clause--that limit the seemingly unlimited plenary power of the pardon clause.

Iow, you can't just point to the pardon clause and say, "See? It's unlimited." That's false, because there are other clauses that limit it.

If Trump issues a pardon for himself tomorrow, what would stop him or affirm him? The court.
Click to expand...

Well, first would be the Office of the Pardon Attorney, who would investigate and then say, "No. You can't do that." Why? Because:

[H]e shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Click to expand...

A pardon necessarily requires the recipient to tacitly admit guilt of a federal crime. Thus, if he issued himself a pardon, he'd likewise be confessing to a federal crime, which axiomatically would be a case of impeachment. He would effectively be convicting himself and thus impeaching himself at the same time.

The piece that neither of you read, however, continues:
Click to expand...

I wasted my time and read it and it's irrelevant to the fact that the issue has not been decided.
Click to expand...

It has. What you mean is, it hasn't been tested, though as that piece you "wasted" your time on pointed out, the test was in fact already conducted when Nixon did not simply pardon himself. If he could have, he would have.

That's the fun part about our jurisprudence. It can operate in the negative as easily as it can in the positive.

Regardless, I hope Trump actively tests it soon as it would be the end of his Presidency no matter what.
 
Koyaanisqatsi said:
:confused: Are you referring to Comey?

There is no law that says one can’t indict a president.
Click to expand...

There is, it's the Constitution. A DOJ "guideline" on what the Constitution allows is not just a plaque on a wall you get at Cracker Barrel. Here is the memorandum from 2000 explaining in detail how the Attorneys General arrived at their conclusions. Here's the short answer:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
Click to expand...

It goes back to 1973 (Nixon, iow) and it is effectively "law" as far as DOJ is concerned and the only way to fight it would be if one had discovered several smoking guns, but even then the argument would be the same; it's up to Congress to try a President.

In order for Mueller to indict Trump, he not only would have triggered a constitutional crisis (which would have bounced to the SCOTUS, who in turn would have immediately invoked everything already outlined in the DOJ guidelines and kicked it back to Congress, wasting a lot of time in the process), he would have had to get approval from AG Barr, which he knew he would never get.

So, yes, he could have indicted Trump, but it would have been a rogue effort that would simply have been crushed immediately. He knew this, which is precisely why he instead brilliantly booby-trapped his report so that Barr would essentially throw the report into the briar patch.

It was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

:confused: What was?

The report itself outlines criminal activity.
Click to expand...

Actually, it brilliantly rules out any excuse that the activity is not criminal (hence the conclusion that he could not exonerate). There is a difference.

Is he above the law or not?
Click to expand...

Wrong question. The right question is, which mechanism is the right one to try the President? The Constitution--which is the highest law--says it's Congress through impeachment proceedings.
Click to expand...

You backed up your rebuttal most excellently, and have changed my mind on the subject.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/us/politics/mueller-barr.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage


Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, wrote a letter in late March to Attorney General William P. Barr objecting to his early description of the Russia investigation’s conclusions that appeared to clear President Trump on possible obstruction of justice, according to the Justice Department and three people with direct knowledge of the communication between the two men.

The letter adds to the growing evidence of a rift between them and is another sign of the anger among the special counsel’s investigators about Mr. Barr’s characterization of their findings, which allowed Mr. Trump to wrongly claim he had been vindicated.

It was unclear what specific objections Mr. Mueller raised in his letter, though a Justice Department spokeswoman said on Tuesday evening that he “expressed a frustration over the lack of context” in Mr. Barr’s presentation of his findings on obstruction of justice. Mr. Barr defended his descriptions of the investigation’s conclusions in conversations with Mr. Mueller over the days after he sent the letter, according to two people with knowledge of their discussions.

Mr. Barr, who was scheduled to testify on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the investigation, has said publicly that he disagrees with some of the legal reasoning in the Mueller report. Senior Democratic lawmakers have invited Mr. Mueller to testify in the coming weeks but have been unable to secure a date for his testimony.
Click to expand...
 
southernhybrid said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage


Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, wrote a letter in late March to Attorney General William P. Barr objecting to his early description of the Russia investigation’s conclusions that appeared to clear President Trump on possible obstruction of justice, according to the Justice Department and three people with direct knowledge of the communication between the two men.

The letter adds to the growing evidence of a rift between them and is another sign of the anger among the special counsel’s investigators about Mr. Barr’s characterization of their findings, which allowed Mr. Trump to wrongly claim he had been vindicated.

It was unclear what specific objections Mr. Mueller raised in his letter, though a Justice Department spokeswoman said on Tuesday evening that he “expressed a frustration over the lack of context” in Mr. Barr’s presentation of his findings on obstruction of justice. Mr. Barr defended his descriptions of the investigation’s conclusions in conversations with Mr. Mueller over the days after he sent the letter, according to two people with knowledge of their discussions.

Mr. Barr, who was scheduled to testify on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the investigation, has said publicly that he disagrees with some of the legal reasoning in the Mueller report. Senior Democratic lawmakers have invited Mr. Mueller to testify in the coming weeks but have been unable to secure a date for his testimony.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What would he know. He was only in charge of the Investigation.
 
From the Mueller letter to Barr:

"There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel: To assure full public confidence in the outcomes of the investigations."

That is pretty damning on its own right and confirms what I've been saying about Barr's opening salvo on the Report.

link to entire letter
 
I started to listen to Barr's testimony after I got back from exercising. I missed the first hour, but OMG, the Republicans are trying to make this look like it was the Democrats that acted illegally. Barr said that it's okay for a president to lie or tell a member of his cabinet to fire someone for any reason. Like I said, I missed the beginning, but what I'm hearing from Barr seems like a distortion of the investigation. Barr keeps saying that the report totally cleared Trump. :rolleyes:

And, the Republicans keep attacking Clinton. She's the one who needs to be investigated for conspiracy. Oh, and let's not forget about Obama! Why didn't he do more to stop Russia from influencing the election?

Barr looks like a liar.
 
southernhybrid said:
Barr looks like a liar.
Click to expand...

That's not even at issue. He was asked if he knew whether Mueller agreed with his summary and said "no" - despite having been told directly by Mueller in the now infamous letter (see above quote).
The guy is a blatant liar and needs to be impeached.
 
Elixir said:
southernhybrid said:
Barr looks like a liar.
Click to expand...

That's not even at issue. He was asked if he knew whether Mueller agreed with his summary and said "no" - despite having been told directly by Mueller in the now infamous letter (see above quote).
The guy is a blatant liar and needs to be impeached.
Click to expand...

I read the letter late last night and I agree with you. But, after watching most of the Barr testimony and how the Republicans are defending him, I doubt that he will be held accountable. Did you see where Barr used the "I don't recall" answer when asked if he had discussed any of the other investigations with the president, and then backed down a bit and said he discuss anything in detail?
 
It is incredible how much cover Trump continues to receive from the GOP. Barr committed perjury regarding his statements to congress about his "review" of the report, and whether Mueller agreed with his view.
Sen. Hirono said:
You lied to Congress. You told Sen. Chris Van Hollen you didn't know if Robert Mueller supported your conclusions, but you knew you lied and now we know.
Click to expand...
 
In the words of John Fugelsang, "This guy has covered up so much shit, cat litter is jealous."
 
Keith&Co. said:
Elixir said:
The guy is a blatant liar and needs to be impeached.
Click to expand...
Can you impeach the AG? I thought that process was only for the president and certain judges...
Click to expand...

Like many higher government officials, he can be impeached. That people only think of the president when the topic comes up shows some short-sightedness.
 
Rumour has it that Mueller will resign so he can testify whithout impediment by the* DOJ
..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom