"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[LostMarbels]

As has been explained ad nauseam, presidents are immune from the law, generally, while in office so Trump cannot be charged or prosecuted with a crime. They can, however, be impeached and then charged with the crime after being removed from office.

No they are not. Nixon? Bill Clinton? This is just a justification they are using because they found nothing. Kings and emperors are incontestable, not Presidents.

Current Justice Department policy says otherwise.

'Policy' is not 'law'.

 

[LostMarbels]

Obstruction occurs during the investigate phase.
And in turn causes another round of investigation. This was happening.

Investigation does not involve impeachment. The prosecution of a sitting government official requires impeachment, not investigations.

Mueller stated why he would not accuse a sitting president.
Now we are here, at the stage where Congress needs to decide whether to accuse or not.

That is silly. Trump has stood 'accused' of the accusations in the muller probe since 2015. They need to decide whether or not they can indite, impeach, then prosecute.

 

[USincognito]

No they are not. Nixon? Bill Clinton? This is just a justification they are using because they found nothing. Kings and emperors are incontestable, not Presidents.

I'd suggest you read this. The Office of Legal Counsel is better acquainted with the law than you are.
The Only Way to Find Out If the President Can Be Indicted

'Policy' is not 'law'.

DOJ policy is administrative law, and the policy is based on an interpretation of the Constitution. Again, I really recommend reading the linked article.

 

[LostMarbels]

I'd suggest you read this. The Office of Legal Counsel is better acquainted with the law than you are.

We have 2 examples in case law concerning impeachment that establish precedent. I suggest you read into them, because neither Bill Clinton, nor Richard Nixon were out of office before they were indicted, and impeached.

DOJ policy is administrative law, and the policy is based on an interpretation of the Constitution. Again, I really recommend reading the linked article.

Come on man, law is the body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority. A policy is written/verbal contract or agreement by which general goals and acceptable procedures of an entity are embraced/enacted.

 

[Hank77]

Yes. If you took the time to read the report, you would see Mueller outline at least 10 obstructive acts committed by Trump. If you listened to his statement today, you would have heard him say, yet again, that the reason no charges resulted from that obstruction was because he cannot do so, under DOJ guidelines.

Actually he could if Rosenstein allowed him to indict. So he either didn't ask to indict or Rosenstein said no. But if Rosenstein said no then he, Rosenstein, must report that to the Congress.
This video is DOJ attorney Neal Katyal who wrote/with others these DOJ rules in 1998 and he explains all this. Skip to 2:15 to get right to it.

 

[USincognito]

We have 2 examples in case law concerning impeachment that establish precedent. I suggest you read into them, because neither Bill Clinton, nor Richard Nixon were out of office before they were indicted, and impeached.

Again, I suggest you read the article I provided to you. President Clinton agreed to testify and to allow himself to be indicted. Also President Nixon was not indicted and never impeached.
National Archives releases draft indictment of Richard Nixon amid Mueller probe - CNNPolitics

"The grand jury was able to discern that Nixon himself was a criminal, and the only reason that they did not indict him is because there was a question of whether or not a sitting President could be indicted," Hughes said.

The question that prevented the grand jury from issuing this indictment remains unanswered. A pair of opinions by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 1973 and 2000 concluded against indicting a sitting President.​

Come on man, law is the body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority. A policy is written/verbal contract or agreement by which general goals and acceptable procedures of an entity are embraced/enacted.

I'd recommend getting your definitions from a source other than the dictionary.
Administrative Law

 

[Pommer]

Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-30] (Introduced 07/12/2017)

Quick and concise timeline:

January 16, 1998
Janet Reno, the US Attorney General, approves the Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr's request for an expansion of the inquiry to include the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.

July 29, 1998
President Clinton decides to testify voluntarily before the prosecutor over the allegations that he committed perjury in covering up a sexual affair with Ms Lewinsky.

August 3, 1998
Clinton is asked for a blood sample for DNA testing.

August 17, 1998
Bill Clinton testifies in the grand jury, acknowledging "inappropriate intimate contact" with Ms Lewinsky. But he insists the evidence he gave to the Jones case in January suit had been accurate.

September 8, 1998
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr releases his report to Congress. It has 11 possible grounds for impeachment. The House votes to make the 445-page report public.

October 5, 1998: The House Judiciary Committee votes to launch a congressional impeachment inquiry against President Clinton.

December 12, 1998
The committee approves a fourth article of impeachment on a party-line vote, accusing Clinton of abusing power in a direct parallel to Watergate-era language.

December 19, 1998
The impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was initiated by the House of Representatives and led to a trial in the Senate on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.


Now let's look at Trump:

No 'grounds'. No Indictments of Trump. No trials against Trump. No testifying before grand jury. No charges brought against Trump. Articles of impeachment Introduced 07/12/2017 but the Muller investigation was not complete until March of 2019.



They moved to impeach over a year before the investigation was even finished. 100% unfounded accusation. Quite literally they want to impeach Trump over accusations so they can justify the impeachment by those accusations. They have brought no actual charges against Trump to impeach him over.

A Congress person did file articles of impeachment, (not about the Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election) but for Trump's failure to properly divest his financial holdings thus violating the “emoluments clause”.

There are two cases wending their way through the courts tackling this controversy.

 

[SimplyMe]

We have 2 examples in case law concerning impeachment that establish precedent. I suggest you read into them, because neither Bill Clinton, nor Richard Nixon were out of office before they were indicted, and impeached.




Come on man, law is the body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority. A policy is written/verbal contract or agreement by which general goals and acceptable procedures of an entity are embraced/enacted.

Actually, neither Clinton nor Nixon were ever indicted, as has been pointed out. Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office by the Senate. Indictment is a criminal proceeding and, under current DoJ procedure (which Trump is clearly not going to allow them to change), a President may not be indicted. A key reason for the DoJ policy is the Constitutional question, where many legal scholars believe the Constitution does not allow the President to be indicted.

Further, the fact that President is not impeached does not mean they did not commit a crime. The Constitution claims that a President should only be impeached for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." So just because Trump has not been impeached does not mean he has not committed a crime -- though it is nice to see you apparently think that Trump should be impeached for his obstruction of Justice.

 

[LostMarbels]

Again, I suggest you read the article I provided to you. President Clinton agreed to testify and to allow himself to be indicted. Also President Nixon was not indicted and never impeached.
National Archives releases draft indictment of Richard Nixon amid Mueller probe - CNNPolitics

"The grand jury was able to discern that Nixon himself was a criminal, and the only reason that they did not indict him is because there was a question of whether or not a sitting President could be indicted," Hughes said.

The question that prevented the grand jury from issuing this indictment remains unanswered. A pair of opinions by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 1973 and 2000 concluded against indicting a sitting President.​

Nixon was already indicted
WatergateRoadMap.pdf

USAvsNixon.pdf

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)

Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974 so he would not face impeachment. He was already charged with crimes beginning in 1972.

And well I do feel like pointing out everything just to point out Trump has not been charged with anything.

I'd recommend getting your definitions from a source other than the dictionary.
Administrative Law

I'm not as think as you dumb I am. Administrative law is not legislation.

 

[LostMarbels]

Indictment is a criminal proceeding and, under current DoJ procedure (which Trump is clearly not going to allow them to change), a President may not be indicted. A key reason for the DoJ policy is the Constitutional question, where many legal scholars believe the Constitution does not allow the President to be indicted.

An indictment is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime.

Trump has not been charged with a crime. This impeachment is literally founded on accusations only. No crime has been committed, and no evidence of a crime has been presented. You do not need to criminally prosecute an individual for unfounded suspicion; so there's no need to impeach Trump to face prosecution for crimes he hasn't even been charged of.

Further, the fact that President is not impeached does not mean they did not commit a crime.

This is exactly the angle they are taking. They want that suspicion to remain in voters minds because they cannot produce evidence to indict him. This is political wrap up smear at it's finest.

 

[stevil]

And well I do feel like pointing out everything just to point out Trump has not been charged with anything.

Noone is disputing that Trump hasn't yet been charged with anything.

So what is your point?

 

[SimplyMe]

An indictment is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime.

View attachment 257578

Trump has not been charged with a crime. This impeachment is literally founded on accusations only. No crime has been committed, and no evidence of a crime has been presented. You do not need to criminally prosecute an individual for unfounded suspicion; so there's no need to impeach Trump to face prosecution for crimes he hasn't even been charged of.



This is exactly the angle they are taking. They want that suspicion to remain in voters minds because they cannot produce evidence to indict him. This is political wrap up smear at it's finest.

No, there is clear evidence to indict him -- just that because of the DOJ policy (to not indict a sitting president), the DOJ will not indict him. Mueller clearly stated this is why he, as Special Counsel, did not make any conclusions about Trump's actions. Additionally, there is clear evidence based on the "individual 1" information that was found in the discovery of Cohen's campaign finance sentencing that Trump could be indicted on (and almost definitely would be if he wasn't the President).

Again, the whole "Trump hasn't been indicted" is a red herring; the current DoJ will not prosecute Trump, period, because of the DoJ policy. And they are clearly not going to change that policy while Trump, the one that would be indicted, has control over the DoJ as President.

 

[LostMarbels]

Noone is disputing that Trump hasn't yet been charged with anything.

So what is your point?

Quite simple, articles of impeachment were drafted only about a month after the entire debacle began. May of 2017 to July of 2017. In one month since Muller was appointed, they already introduced a bill to impeach Trump before the investigation even concluded years latter in March of 2019. You think they had their minds made up? Maybe a goal in mind?

 

[LostMarbels]

No, there is clear evidence to indict him

Where? Steele dossier? Muller report? You cannot honestly believe all these individuals that have been gunning for Trump are just going to sit on it and let him remain in office. Honestly. If they had an expired parking ticket it would be on every MSM channel 24/7 for days if not weeks.

 

[SimplyMe]

Quite simple, articles of impeachment were drafted only about a month after the entire debacle began. May of 2017 to July of 2017. In one month since Muller was appointed, they already introduced a bill to impeach Trump before the investigation even concluded years latter in March of 2019. You think they had their minds made up? Maybe a goal in mind?

Yes, one Congressperson drafted a bill to impeach. How much support did that bill get -- was it even really discussed in committee before being tabled?

Beyond that, it just points out that there were lots of questions about Trump's activities even before taking office. As you will agree to, all that bill of impeachment is for is to investigate the President to determine if impeachment (indicting) and a trial in the Senate was warranted. It says nothing about the mindset of the person that drafted it, much less that his mind was made up; it merely states that there were things that should be investigated -- which is the same reason a Special Prosecutor was appointed.

 

[Hank77]

A Congress person did file articles of impeachment, (not about the Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election) but for Trump's failure to properly divest his financial holdings thus violating the “emoluments clause”.

There are two cases wending their way through the courts tackling this controversy.

I didn't know until the other day that Trump co-owns rental properties that receive federal funding through HUD's Section 8 voucher housing program for the poor. It's the Starrett complex with over 5,000 units but this one is in a revocable trust.

 

[SimplyMe]

Where? Steele dossier? Muller report? You cannot honestly believe all these individuals that have been gunning for Trump are just going to sit on it and let him remain in office. Honestly. If they had an expired parking ticket it would be on every MSM channel 24/7 for days if not weeks.

It is in the Mueller Report, in Section 2.

And if they weren't going to "sit on it" and allow him to remain in office, why has impeachment proceedings not even been started?

 

[Hank77]

NM

 

[Hank77]

I am in the same place i was before. He basically described what was in the report.

Personally, i would like to see him face questions, as barr did. Sort of like a trial, where both sides get to cross examine, not just one side.

I still liken this situation to bill clinton. The dems have enough information to impeach trump, but it likely fails in the senate, with no conviction.

I think he needs to testify because it's the only way most Americans will take notice and understand what's in the report. Most people aren't going to take the time to read it. He said if he was called to testify he wouldn't testify about any beyond what is in the report.

 

[USincognito]

Nixon was already indicted
WatergateRoadMap.pdf
View attachment 257576

USAvsNixon.pdf
View attachment 257575​

You might want to look at the entirety of both documents. The indictment order is a draft, not an actual filing. The same goes with Jaworsky's recommendations. It was a draft for when the green light for indictment came on. It never did so he was never indicted. Do you really think that all the news articles saying he was never indicted are just lying to the public?​

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)

Why did you link to a case about whether the President can withhold recordings and documents and had nothing to do with indictment?

And well I do feel like pointing out everything just to point out Trump has not been charged with anything.

We keep explaining to you why that is the case, but you don't seem to be getting it. Did you read any of the links others have provided to you?

I'm not as think as you dumb I am. Administrative law is not legislation.

I never said Administrative law is legislation, so I have no idea why you think I did.