HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "There's No Way Mueller W...

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 12:57 PM

"There's No Way Mueller Will Indict Trump" according to The Atlantic (hope they're wrong)

"The latest revelations about President Trump have, once again, excited the interest of the public, leading to speculation that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may have amassed sufficient evidence to charge the president with obstruction of justice. Trump’s attempt to fire Mueller (which happened last June, but is only now being publicly reported) is, under this line of thinking, the final straw. Color me deeply skeptical.

Mueller will not indict Trump for obstruction of justice or for any other crime. Period. Full stop. End of story. Speculations to the contrary are just fantasy.

He won’t do it for the good and sufficient reason that the Department of Justice has a long-standing legal opinion that sitting presidents may not be indicted. First issued in 1973 during the Nixon era, the policy was reaffirmed in 2000, during the Clinton era. These rules bind all Department of Justice employees, and Mueller, in the end, is a Department of Justice employee. More to the point, if we know anything about Mueller, we think we know that he follows the rules—all of them. Even the ones that restrict him in ways he would prefer they not. And if he were to choose not to follow the rules, that, in turn, would be a reasonable justification for firing him. So … the special counsel will not indict the president." (Read more)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/even-if-trump-is-found-guilty-mueller-wouldnt-be-the-indictment-decision-maker/551753/?utm_source=atlfb

21 replies, 2247 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply "There's No Way Mueller Will Indict Trump" according to The Atlantic (hope they're wrong) (Original post)
FM123 Jan 2018 OP
louis-t Jan 2018 #1
greymattermom Jan 2018 #2
SHRED Jan 2018 #3
Fred Sanders Jan 2018 #9
SHRED Jan 2018 #13
Mr. Ected Jan 2018 #15
mrJJ Jan 2018 #4
Fred Sanders Jan 2018 #12
mn9driver Jan 2018 #5
Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2018 #6
unblock Jan 2018 #11
marylandblue Jan 2018 #18
FM123 Jan 2018 #20
marylandblue Jan 2018 #17
MariaCSR Jan 2018 #7
Fred Sanders Jan 2018 #8
pnwmom Jan 2018 #10
triron Jan 2018 #14
marylandblue Jan 2018 #21
flotsam Jan 2018 #16
asiliveandbreathe Jan 2018 #19

Response to FM123 (Original post)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:01 PM

1. Even if he does, what will happen?

Drumpf setting the example right now, ignoring laws he doesn't like. Any indictment will be ignored by the majority in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:02 PM

2. Just indict

Ivanka, Jared, Don Jr, et al.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:06 PM

3. They can throw out "tradition"

 

We are under attack by Russia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:25 PM

9. SHRED, I agree. Putin inside elections and money laundering is unprecedented. Even if no

indictments or no impeachment...what credibility would Shitler have domestically or in the world if the collected evidence is overwhelming? The demands for resignation would be ceaseless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:30 PM

13. Yep

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:33 PM

15. Co-sign.

Precedents don't apply when the alleged perpetrator has fully abandoned the rule of law.

Once that's the case, the perp certainly shouldn't be able to cite "rule of law" as a way to avoid adjudication.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:08 PM

4. How the President Can Be Prosecuted as a Criminal

Source: Time

London is a retired partner for the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and the author of The Client Decides; he was a principal lawyer for Vice President Spiro Agnew.

Snip

... There is no language in the Constitution providing the President with any immunity from prosecution by the appropriate criminal authorities: he is subject to the ordinary criminal processes of “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.” Furthermore, there is not one syllable directly putting the President beyond the reach of the criminal law even if Congress does not impeach.

[link:http://time.com/5123598/president-trump-impeach-criminal-constitution/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrJJ (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:28 PM

12. Absolute immunity for ALL crimes for anyone would never be in any constitution. If you

claim it it better be there, and no where else is good enough...and it is not there.

The End.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:14 PM

5. The only indictment that can apply to a sitting president is articles of impeachment,

voted and passed by the House of Representatives. That's it. And it's not going to happen in this congress.

And even if it happens in the next congress because Democrats have taken the House, Trump will never be convicted in the Senate. Conviction and removal requires 67 Senators.

Not.
Going.
To.
Happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:16 PM

6. Wait a min.....

Didn't SCOTUS rule that Clinton had to answer to the Paula Jones suit while in office? Granted, that was a civil matter but why should a criminal matter be treated any different (if not more importantly)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:27 PM

11. it's technically a different question, though i agree with your conclusion.

if it ever came to the supreme court, it would be hard for them to maintain, with a straight face, that the government's interests in having the president of the united states be able to carry out the duties of that office are not particularly hampered by the need to deal with a civil suit, or at least the interests of a civil litigant outweigh any such concerns...

yet dealing with a criminal case *would* sufficiently hamper a president...

that's a tough legal argument to put forth with a straight face, imho.


the problem is, it will never get to the supreme court if the justice department takes it on themselves to refuse to ever indict.

then again, some state attorney general my indict under state law at some point. yet another technically different question....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:49 PM

18. Mueller indicts on his own, not DOJ

Last edited Tue Jan 30, 2018, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

He might need Rosenstein's approval, but that's it. That's why it's just as important to protect Rosenstein as to protect Mueller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marylandblue (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 03:02 PM

20. Yes, just as important to protect Rosenstein.

From the same Atlantic article:
"So, every time you read about the threat to fire Mueller, remember this—the critical actor in most future scenarios is not Mueller, but Rosenstein. Knowing Rosenstein personally, I have high confidence that he will make what he thinks is the best decision for the country—the same may not be true of his replacement (or of the replacement attorney general, should Sessions be fired)."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:47 PM

17. It shouldn't

Whenever an issue that includes the question, "Is the President above the law?" has come before the courts, they have always answered "NO!" The issue of criminal indictment has never come to the courts, so sure there is lots of legal theory. But the political theory of the Constitution is that the SCOTUS will guard its jurisdiction as arbiter of the law, and should still answer "NO!" In the end, I think that will be more decisive that any of the law school exercises we've been reading about.

Also, there is a historical footnote to Watergate. The grand jury and members of Jaworski's staff WANTED to indict Nixon, but Jaworski refused to go along. But if everything we suspect about Trump is true, the argument for indictment is much stronger now than it was then.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/06/17/The-Watergate-grand-jury-tried-relentlessly-to-indict-Richard/6784393134400/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:17 PM

7. This makes me very sad.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:21 PM

8. Rules are made by people and for sufficient cause, legally, or not, politically, rules are

changable.

No one is above the law is one of the rules that should not be changed, Clinton-era was Clinton-era. This is PUTIN era and mass money laundering era. Absolutely no precedent but the precedent of the supremacy of rule of law...or we have a Dear Leader.

So, for those reasons, in short, I disagree strongly with The Atlantic writer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:26 PM

10. He doesn't have to. He has the NY State attorney general for that.

And Trump can't stop AG Schneiderman from developing a case that will force Congress's hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:32 PM

14. Doesn't Mueller have to refer to DOJ for indictment? Or indict by a federal grand jury?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 04:16 PM

21. He does not have to refer to DOJ, and he is using a grand jury

The regulations for special counselor make him the prosecutor, not DOJ. It's not clear if a 20-year old opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel is binding on Mueller or Rosenstein.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 01:43 PM

16. The Author if a Fake President Fellater and member of the Heritage Foundation and Hoover Institute

who was involved in prosecuting Bill Clinton. Fair and Balanced is my guess...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FM123 (Original post)

Tue Jan 30, 2018, 02:00 PM

19. This falls to Rosenstein - thus all the more reason to discredit Rosenstein...

Nunes will do his best "memo" to do just that....."DOJ regulations" - Mueller sends report to Rosenstein - Rosenstein to congress -

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread