Don't buy the lie that Mueller said he believes it's unconstitutional to indict a sitting president

I don't think the DoJ policy IS that indicting is unconstitutional, more like 'inconvenient.'

It's clear, however, he was and is going to comply with DoJ's position on the subject.

president, he would indicated that.

The real question on whether a sitting President can be indicted or not would need to be decided by the courts, and it is doubtful that will happen.

The only path to indict trump would be through a successful impeachment and removal from office or his resignation, after which he could be indicted

at least that is how I understand it


Thanks Effie for clarifying this

the sentence is ambiguous. He doesn't clarify what "That" is referring to. Was he referring to the policy or the charging of a sitting President with a federal crime?

He should have made it clearer or maybe that was his intent. Either way, I can see how it would be misinterpreted.

If you read it in the context of the entire paragraph, it's impossible to rationally assume that he was expressing his personal opinion - unless you think that for the only time in the entire statement he suddenly shifted gears to inject his personal opinion (without identifying it is such) into the middle of his explanation about DOJ policy - and then immediately switched back in the very next sentence to talking about the policy again.

Nowhere in his statement did Mueller express a personal opinion, so it's illogical to assume that that one sentence was is opinion, especially in the context in which it was said.

Either way a person interprets that three-word statement would be as an opinion.

Either Mueller is saying the policy is unconstitutional or he's saying charging a sitting president is unconstitutional. Either one could be construed as his opinion. That's why there's such a disagreement right now as to what he was referring to. He should have been more clear.

about a policy when he offered no opinion in any other part of his statement?

And if it were his opinion that it was unconstitutional to indict a sitting president, he wouldn't need reference the DOJ opinion at all.

But even if that is his opinion, so what? His opinion is irrelevant in the investigation. The DOJ opinion controls his actions and, as he said, under the DOJ opinion, he could not charge the president.

This cherry picking one sentence out of context and trying to turn it into something is a tactic to distract from the overall statement. It looks like you fell for it. That's unfortunate.

Either way one would construe his statement IS a personal opinion. It's either his personal opinion that charging a sitting president is unconstitutional or it's his opinion that the DOJ policy is unconstitutional.

I'm not interpreting it either way and haven't from the start of this discussion. I merely said it was ambiguous and could have been stated more clearly what he was referring to.

"under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office, that it's unconstitutional" which is even clearer.

But either way, I don't think anyone not looking to statement apart for some reason could interpret it as anything other than a reference to department policy. And the only reason to make such a big deal of it, in my view, is to intentionally distract from the power of what he said - that the only reason he did not indict the president was that he prohibited by department policy from doing so.

Why anyone would want to stomp all over that message with a picayune claim that he personally agrees with the department policy?

On Edit: the transcript says "That is unconstitutional"

His actual words were "that is unconstitutional". Something different.

And if you go back and watch his presentation he sort of threw that in as an aside after a brief pause.

It's clear to me that he was agreeing with the DOJ's rationale for non-indictment. Which is all beside the point, anyway, because he would not have violated DOJ policy, anyway.

I actually don't understand what the point of this thread is. It doesn't matter either way... whether or not he was sharing the opinion or merely passing it on. Neither interpretation adds nor detracts from trump's guilt.

I wish I was a mind reader. It would be cool.




That's evident.



That's a U turn from the first part of your post....

Perhaps you learned something from others who have posted here?

He specifically said "That is unconstitutional".

Unless he's a very poor grammarian it's obvious that he shares the opinion.

Not that Mueller is/should be the be all and end all of constitutional interpretation in any case.

It's clear and unambiguous to anyone who can read and interpret the spoken and written English language.

How's that?

See post #77 for an explanation about why you get this wrong.

Here's where you're getting it wrong:

Remember when the GOP doing the very same thing to Obama, when they took "You didn't build that" out of context to 'prove' that he doesn't think business owners built their business. To make it clearer for you, I've italicized the context, and bolded what the RW extracted:



They misrepresented what the "thats" referred to. "That" refers to "this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive," not "your business."


Now, here's how you did that in Mueller's statement:



So, "that is unconstitutional" refers to what the DOJ policy states - a continuation of the description of the DOJ policy - what is allowed and what is prohibited as 'unconstitutional.' It is quoting the policy, not making a personal constitutional law judgement. That is the context you continually refuse to acknowledge in an effort to deny that you made a mistake once you have been corrected.

One has far more credibility when one acknowledges mistakes than when one doubles down on them.

And, obviously, thank you.

Recommended.

It's that simple.

But the fact of plain language says that he shares the DOJ opinion of its unconstitutionality.

You mean taken out of context?

One sees what one wants, I guess.

by blatantly mischaracterizing his comment with a ridiculous interpretation that doesn't undermine the point but does serve to distract from it.

Wonder why they're so eager to do Trump's dirty work...

surely don't believe that....

after his statement that all but stated he's guilty?

If Mueller was in the bag for DT, how on earth do you explain this statement:

‘If We Had Confidence That the President Did Not Commit a Crime, We Would Have Said So"



"Length of time on DU" does not endow anyone with mind reading powers, or a constitutional law degree, or expertise on DOJ policy.

that ppl that are legit upset are helping trump on purpose instead of an ordinary emotional reaction

I've seen it plenty on DU.

And it does play into the hands of the GOP.

I think that Pelosi and Mueller are allies, as well, though Mueller would get flayed like Strzok was if he admitted it.

The DOJ is wrong.

Mueller does not set DOJ policy, nor has he indicated any opinion on if it is correct constitutionally or not. That is not his job as Special Prosecutor.

Glad that's settled.

Look, we may not like it, but that is literally what the Constitution says - the House of Representatives is the only body that can indict a sitting President, and the only body that can try & convict on that charge is the Senate. Any further legal action can be taken by the Executive and Judicial branches after he is out of office.

Mueller is doing his best to stand up for the Constitution during this mess, despite how anyone may feel about him.

You might argue that the doctrine of separation of powers mandates such a conclusion but I believe that's a stretch, at best.

And that is what constrained Mueller.

What he thinks of it isn't clear, but since he did everything but say that POTUS is guilty of a crime, I think he's not too much of a fan.

What difference does it make?

Robert Mueller's personal opinion on the subject is of the same practical effect as anyone else's - i.e. nil.

but some people are making a big deal of it as if it does make a difference... I suspect the purpose is to deflect from the import of saying the only reason he did not charge Trump was that he was prohibited by the DOJ rule.

I suspect people are expressing their opinions.

Sorry, but your entire thread is pointless.

But for someone who thinks it doesn't make a difference, you're spending an awful lot of time responding to my posts about it.

"Sorry, but your entire response is pointless."

Trumpies. It is disappointing to see it repeated here.

Let's please insist on hearing or reading WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID, not what some time-filling talking head or---worse---someone like Sanders or Giuliani SAYS was said.

There's plenty to be outraged about without inventing additional reasons.

We moved from the non-stop attacks on Speaker Pelosi to a pile-on on Mueller.

A sure sign that Mueller drew blood...

...here. Gaaah.

Nicolle Wallace wll be on the tv-machine in another hour (1:00 my time), and her panel should be good. Or I could just record her and shop for those picture-frames I need.

The "Dems are bad" parade is rolling through. Also the "Mueller betrayed us!!11" sideshow.

There are several OPs on it and tons of comments.

my position hasn't changed but I've moved on bc the president, any president is in fact above the law.

statement out of it, period.

Mueller didn't, and won't. He gave his opinion on the matter, as subject to the DOJ policy. Forget about Mueller.

The Dems in the House could try. It would be litigated, ending up in the Supreme Court.

Does anyone think that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are going to find that Trump can be indicted?

He can be indicted after he leaves office, if the statute of limitations hasn't run.

to Impeach. The US Senate has the SOLE RIGHT to Remove the POTUS if they so wish. The Supreme Court has NOTHING to do with either. #FACTS

IMO, that's a waste of time, because the S.Ct. won't rule that a sitting President can be indicted.

The Dems can impeach, for historical purposes. The current Senate won't impeach him, so he'll remain in office, like Bill Clinton did.

Looks like nothing's changed, as far as what the Democrats can do about this criminal in the Presidency.

That's an executive branch function.

The only way that would get a court involved is for a prosecutor to indict the president and he tries to quash the indictment. That's not likely to happen at the federal level under this administration is long as the Justice Department is under the control of Trump's lackeys.

It's possible that a state prosecutor could trigger a court challenge by indicting the president under state law. the president would likely try to quash the indictment and the case would end up in federal court. Although it's a state prosecution, the Federal Court could rule on the constitutionality of a sitting president being indicted, and the ruling would likely apply to federal prosecutions as well.

not the SC's personal opinion.

If the President does it. It's not a crime.
Or something like that.

was that he read it as if he was a hostage with a gun pointed at his head. It sounded like he didn't even write it.

He reinforced the notion that a sitting president is above the law setting the stage for a court ruling.

In effect, it says that a president could openly embezzle from the government, deal drugs from the White House, run a prostitution ring, attack and physically assault people and not be indicted for any crime. All such a president needs to do is resign before a new team is sworn in so his former VP could then pardon him as the new president. He thus escapes punishment for his crimes. I doubt that our founders believed that a president committing crimes should just be allowed to keep committing them and to escape punishment through a pardon. Impeachment is a political action; indictment is a criminal action and Trump clearly has committed crimes for which he needs to be indicted. The excuse that a president is too busy to defend himself if indicted is just hogwash—that’s why we have a VP to serve as president when the president is temporarily sidelined.

And the only literal reading of what he said is that interpretation.

if he was to do something like what you list.

So there's that.

I think those who refuse to read for context either went into it with preconceived notions or they're being intentionally ignorant.

In context, it's quite clear what he was talking about.

Wouldn't want visitors thinking they'd stumbled into the Cave by accident.

which can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

But what would have happened if Mueller had decided to ignore the OLC opinions?

The OLC opined that a sitting president can't be indicted because to do so would violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers, but what if Mueller had decided, "Fuck that guy and fuck the OLC memos, he obstructed justice and I'm gonna indict his ass." Of course, the opinion stated in the OLC memos is not settled law, although the argument and the research and reasoning behind it is rational and credible, not "stupid" or "bullshit," as some have described it. Others, notably Lawrence Tribe, have made very good arguments to the contrary, as here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president

So what if Mueller had decided scholars like Tribe were right and the OLC was wrong? Let's say he takes the evidence to a grand jury, which returns a bill of indictment actually charging the president and not just calling him an unindicted co-conspirator, as a Watergate grand jury did with Nixon. What would have happened to that indictment?

Most likely, Bill Barr is what would have happened, since it's probable that decision would have been made toward the end of the investigation and after Barr was appointed (and if not Barr, unqualified toady Whitaker or easily-intimidated Rosenstein).

Barr or his predecessors, on Trump's instructions or on their own, would have ensured that the indictment would have never seen the light of day and Mueller would have been fired. That's what would have happened. It would be another Saturday Night Massacre but without any heroes like Richardson and Ruckelshaus. Even though the Special Counsel regulations require any denials of proposed prosecution to be reported, if Mueller was fired there would be no report.

Or, taking it another direction, let's say Barr didn't quash the indictment or fire Mueller but instead challenged the indictment on the basis of the OLC opinions. Now we have two parts of the same agency, the DoJ, fighting with each other in court - the Special Counsel vs. his boss, the Attorney General. How does that play out? And if it ever did get to the Supreme Court, how is a majority of this Court going to rule? Kroner to krugerrands, they'd go with the OLC opinions.

So then we'd be back where we started and Trump will have run out the clock. Arguments about the validity and strength of the OLC guidance and whether Mueller should have followed it are academic and fruitless because the ultimate result would have been the same: no indictment.