PLXTO
Toronto Escorts

Can a sitting president be indicted by the DOJ?

Can A Sitting President Be Indicted By The DOJ?


  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .

doggystyle99

Well-known member
May 23, 2010
7,906
1,205
113
You forget one tiny, tiny detail. There was an actual crime committed under Nixon. Not so in this case as Mueller stated clearly and without any doubt. Mueller cites 10 cases in which the President might have crossed over into obstruction. Who is going to indict or attempt impeachment on "might have"??? For the same reason he left it out for the AG to decide because he was unable to arrive at the yes/no conclusion.
He didn't leave it to the AG to arrive at a conclusion, he left it to congress to choose if they would proceed.
Also it's not "10 cases which the president might have crossed into obstruction"
Mueller arrived at "10 attempts that the president obstructed justice."
His basis was that the DOJ can not indict a sitting president, hence no indictment.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
He didn't leave it to the AG to arrive at a conclusion, he left it to congress to choose if they would proceed.
Also it's not "10 cases which the president might have crossed into obstruction"
Mueller arrived at "10 attempts that the president obstructed justice."
His basis was that the DOJ can not indict a sitting president, hence no indictment.
Yawn, actually the report went to the AG and not to Congress. If the AG wanted, he could have shitcanned the whole report and that would have been that. That is what Nadler advocated for the Starr Report. It was Mueller's job to arrive at yes/no option- that is the whole point of the investigation. Yes, I can prove obstruction or no, I cannot. He chose the middle ground- to present his findings to the AG for determination. The AG with his Deputy decided. The House can now do whatever it wants, but whatever it decides it will be political and not question of law. The points of law in the case of the Special Council inquiry have been settled. End of the story. Whatever follows will just be more same old partisan bullshit.
 

doggystyle99

Well-known member
May 23, 2010
7,906
1,205
113
Yawn, actually the report went to the AG and not to Congress. If the AG wanted, he could have shitcanned the whole report and that would have been that. That is what Nadler advocated for the Starr Report. It was Mueller's job to arrive at yes/no option- that is the whole point of the investigation. Yes, I can prove obstruction or no, I cannot. He chose the middle ground- to present his findings to the AG for determination. The AG with his Deputy decided. The House can now do whatever it wants, but whatever it decides it will be political and not question of law. The points of law in the case of the Special Council inquiry have been settled. End of the story. Whatever follows will just be more same old partisan bullshit.
Incorrect as usual.
But I love how once one of your Trumpista spins gets refuted you're on to the next spin. Again the Mueller report arrived at "10 attempts of obstruction of justice" there is no might in there. Again the report does not exonerate Trump but asks the congress to proceed as they see fit, since Mueller based his report on the fact that the DOJ can not indict a sitting president, hence no indictment.

Can a sitting president be indicted by the DOJ?
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
Incorrect as usual.
But I love once one of your Trumpista spins gets refuted you're on to the next spin. Again the Mueller report arrived at "10 attempts of obstruction of justice" there is no might in there. Again the report does not exonerate Trump but asks the congress to proceed as they see fit, since Mueller based his report on the fact that the DOJ can not indict a sitting president, hence no indictment.

Can a sitting president be indicted by the DOJ?
LOL!!! Idiotic. One of the "attempts" was tbe Comey firing. Even if you could indict the sitting President, the Supreme Court would laugh that charge right out. Even if Trump fired Comey because of the Russia suspicion( before the appointment of the Special Council) the lack of the underlying crime(the Russian Collusion) and the President's knowledge of the absence of crime makes Comey firing a straight exercise in the executive authority. In other words, no obstruction could have taken place in that sitiuation. Less MSNBC and more of your own judgement(if you have any), buddy.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
You forget one tiny, tiny detail. There was an actual crime committed under Nixon. Not so in this case as Mueller stated clearly and without any doubt. Mueller cites 10 cases in which the President might have crossed over into obstruction. Who is going to indict or attempt impeachment on "might have"??? For the same reason he left it out for the AG to decide because he was unable to arrive at the yes/no conclusion.
What Mueller said was that the evidence of obstruction was there, but not sufficiently decisive for someone in his role to say that charges should be laid. He did not speak for the A-G†, nor for the Congress. He also said that the evidence at hand was not sufficient to exonerate the President. He was an investigator, not a Prosecutor, and others have prosecuted the instances where charges have been laid.

It's certainly undeniable that Nixon's underlings actually committed a blue-collar crime of burglary, and that Trump's minions have only been convicted of white-collar crimes like lying and bribing, but neither President was ever going to get his own hands dirty were they? Prosecutors — like the A-G, or those who might be appointed by the House to present a case for impeachment — present iffy cases all the time. It's why we have juries and judges.

And let's not forget, ultimately the jury in this case is the American people, and they didn't have a favourable opinion of Trump's worthiness to begin with. Do you really suppose anything in the Mueller Report will change that opinion for the better? No wonder his MAGAtts are looking up all the technicalities they can find.
---
† And why, on either side of the border, A-G's aren't supposed to take instruction from their Head of Government. The rationale for why a sitting President can't be indicted is the same for reigning Monarchs. We disposed of that one when we deposed Charles I, and our Kings and such have behaved much better since. Americans wrote their procedure into the Constitution, and so far, no President has been so bad that it's gone all the way. There's always room for a first.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
What Mueller said was that the evidence of obstruction was there, but not sufficiently decisive for someone in his role to say that charges should be laid. He did not speak for the A-G, nor for the Congress. He also said that the evidence at hand was not sufficient to exonerate the President. He was an investigator, not a Prosecutor.

It's certainly undeniable that Nixon's underlings actually committed a blue-collar crime of burglary, and that Trump's minions have only been convicted of white-collar crimes like lying and bribing, but neither President was ever going to get his own hands dirty were they? Prosecutors — like the A-G, or those who might be appointed by the House to present a case for impeachment — present iffy cases all the time. It's why we have juries and judges.

And let's not forget, ultimately the jury in this case is the American people, and they didn't have a favourable opinion of Trump's worthiness to begin with. Do you really suppose anything in the Mueller Report will change that opinion for the better? No wonder his MAGAtts are looking up all the technicalities they can find.
Correction. Mueller did speak to the AG before the report was completed as the AG revealed during his testimony on the Hill.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Correction. Mueller did speak to the AG before the report was completed as the AG revealed during his testimony on the Hill.
I did not say, nor did I think that he didn't. Nor can I imagine the point you think that makes; after all, he was appointed by the A-G's Deputy, (the A-G having recused himself) and reported to the A-G. Of course he spoke to him.

Trump, like Trudeau, did improperly try to use his power to have the A-G and others exert influence on Mueller, but that's an entirely different matter.
 

doggystyle99

Well-known member
May 23, 2010
7,906
1,205
113
What Mueller said was that the evidence of obstruction was there, but not sufficiently decisive for someone in his role to say that charges should be laid. He did not speak for the A-G†, nor for the Congress. He also said that the evidence at hand was not sufficient to exonerate the President. He was an investigator, not a Prosecutor, and others have prosecuted the instances where charges have been laid.

† And why, on either side of the border, A-G's aren't supposed to take instruction from their Head of Government. The rationale for why a sitting President can't be indicted is the same for reigning Monarchs. We disposed of that one when we deposed Charles I, and our Kings and such have behaved much better since. Americans wrote their procedure into the Constitution, and so far, no President has been so bad that it's gone all the way. There's always room for a first.
Correction. Mueller did speak to the AG before the report was completed as the AG revealed during his testimony on the Hill.
I did not say, nor did I think that he didn't. Nor can I imagine the point you think that makes; after all, he was appointed by the A-G's Deputy, (the A-G having recused himself) and reported to the A-G. Of course he spoke to him.

Trump, like Trudeau, did improperly try to use his power to have the A-G and others exert influence on Mueller, but that's an entirely different matter.
JCPRO read the above statement and misunderstood as usual. It takes him a few tries to comprehend what one is typing and then he is off to his next spin on the words.
JCPRO read he did not speak for the AG. Not to the AG.
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,088
2,733
113
LOL!!! Idiotic. One of the "attempts" was tbe Comey firing. Even if you could indict the sitting President, the Supreme Court would laugh that charge right out. Even if Trump fired Comey because of the Russia suspicion( before the appointment of the Special Council) the lack of the underlying crime(the Russian Collusion) and the President's knowledge of the absence of crime makes Comey firing a straight exercise in the executive authority. In other words, no obstruction could have taken place in that sitiuation. Less MSNBC and more of your own judgement(if you have any), buddy.
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."



Obstruction of justice:

1) It’s not about an underlying crime.

2) It’s not about whether Trump colluded with Russia.

3) It’s about whether he interfered with or obstructed the investigation of that charge.


Obstructing the due administration of justice.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."



Obstruction of justice:

1) It’s not about an underlying crime.

2) It’s not about whether Trump colluded with Russia.

3) It’s about whether he interfered with or obstructed the investigation of that charge.


Obstructing the due administration of justice.
The investigation is concluded. The administration cooperated fully without invoking the executive privilege even once. The President was not charged. Where is your case?
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,137
3,572
113
The investigation is concluded. The administration cooperated fully without invoking the executive privilege even once. The President was not charged. Where is your case?
They dont have a case. Their pride, their ego and their hate for Trump has completely blinded them to reality and the truth.

I hope they keep the witch hunt up, because it'll almost assure a 2nd term for Trump :nod:
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,750
17,572
113
Mueller's investigation was a criminal investigation only, not counter intelligence.
That investigation is ongoing.

What Mueller found was that Trump repeatedly tried to contact Russians about retrieving the '30,000 emails' he believed Clinton deleted.
The problem was that they don't exist so Trump's attempt to conspire on that hacking failed because he was inept and following a conspiracy theory.

However, Mueller also found that Trump was personally communicating with wikileaks about the release of the dems hacked emails.
Mostly he found that Trump was incredibly inept but constantly trying to conspire with Russia to fuck over the election.

GRU Hacking Directed at the Clinton Campaign

If the active measures section of the report is exonerating of Trump and his campaign, the section that follows it—the Russian hacking section—is not. It is much worse than is commonly understood for Trump. Just how damning it is has gone somewhat unnoticed for, I think, four reasons. First, like the social media discussion, the hacking section to some degree tracks material already in a Mueller indictment—in this case, the GRU indictment—so what is new is woven in among already familiar material. Second, as with the IRA discussion, there is no ultimate decision to charge anyone on the U.S. side with participation in the hacking. Third, a key portion of this section is significantly impaired by redactions. Anf finally, the story Mueller is telling here is one that's a little different from the one everyone was looking for. The result of these four factors in combination is that the full story Mueller presents has not quite come through.

So let’s tease it out, because it’s actually a whopper.

On the Russian hacking itself, the report contains a lot of new detail but not a lot that fundamentally changes our understanding of the Russian operation. And yes, Mueller does not appear to have developed evidence that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was involved in the hacking operation itself.

But here’s the thing: it wasn’t for lack of trying. Indeed, the Mueller report makes clear that Trump personally ordered an attempt to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails; and people associated with the campaign pursued this believing they were dealing with Russian hackers. Trump also personally engaged in discussions about coordinating public relations strategy around WikiLeaks releases of hacked emails. At least one person associated with the campaign was in touch directly with the Guccifer 2.0 persona of the GRU. And Donald Trump, Jr. was directly in touch with WikiLeaks itself—from whom he obtained a password to a hacked database. There are reasons none of these incidents amount to crimes—good reasons, in my view, in most cases, viable judgment calls in others. But the picture it all paints of the president’s conduct is anything but exonerating.

This was not “no collusion.” It was Keystone Kollusion—and the incompetence of it is likely the reason no crime was committed.

The first important point here is that the GRU and the Trump campaign—including Trump himself—were not operating in parallel worlds but in interative interaction with one another. On July 27, 2016, Trump in a speech publicly called for Russia to release Hillary Clinton’s missing server emails: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” The reference here was not to the hacking the GRU had done over the past few months but to the hypothesized compromise of Clinton’s private email server some time earlier—an event which there is no particular reason to believe took place at all.

The GRU, like many Trump supporters, took Trump seriously, but not literally. “Within approximately five hours of Trump’s announcement,” Mueller writes, “GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton’s personal office.” In other words, the GRU appears to have responded to Trump's call for Russia to release a set of Clinton's emails the Russians likely never hacked and thus did not have by launching a new wave of attacks aimed at other materials.

Trump has since insisted that he was joking in that speech. But the public comments mirrored private orders. After the speech, “Trump asked individuals affiliated with his Campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails," the report states. "Michael Flynn . . . recalled that Trump made this request repeatedly, and Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails.”

Oh.

Two of the people contacted by Flynn were Barbara Ledeen and Peter Smith. Ledeen had been working on recoving the emails for a while already, Mueller reports. Smith, only weeks after Trump’s speech, sprang into action himself on the subject. The result was the operation about which Matt Tait wrote a first-hand account on Lawfare. “The investigation established that Smith communicated with at least [campaign officials] Flynn and [Sam] Clovis about his search for the deleted Clintoin emails,” Mueller writes, though “the Office did not identify evidence that any of the listed individuals initiated or directed Smith’s efforts.” Ledeen obtained emails that proved to be not authentic. Smith, for his part, “drafted multiple emails stating or intimating that he was in contact with Russian hackers”—though Mueller notes that the investigation “did not establish that Smith was in contact with Russian hackers or that Smith, Ledeen, or other individuals in touch with the Trump Campaign utlimately obtained the deleted Clinton emails.”

In other words, it wasn’t that Trump was above dealing with Russian hackers to get Hillary Clinton’s emails. He not only called publicly on the Russians to deliver the goods on his opponent, he privately ordered his campaign to seek the material out. He did this knowing himself—clear from his public statements and very clear from the actions of those who acted on his request—that Russia would or might be the source.

The reason there’s no foul here is only that the whole thing was a wild conspiracy theory. The idea that the missing 30,000 emails had been retrieved was never more than conjecture, after all. The idea that they would be easily retrievable from the “dark web” was a kind of fantasy. In other words, even as a real hacking operation was going on, Trump personally, his campaign, and his campaign followers were actively attempting to collude with a fake hacking operation that wasn't going on.

It is not illegal to imagine stolen emails and try to retrieve them from imagined hackers. But it’s morally little different from being spoon-fed information by Russian intelligence. The Trump campaign was seeking exactly the spoon-feeding it was accused of taking; it just couldn’t manage to find the right spoon, and it kept missing when it tried to put any spoons in its mouth.

As to the real hacking operation, that one didn’t need Trump’s help. The Guccifer 2.0 persona had direct contact with Roger Stone (whose name is redacted in the description in the report) in August and September of 2016, Mueller reports. But the GRU had its own distribution mechanisms and didn’t need to engage directly with the Trump campaign or its surrogates. As the operation progressed, Wikileaks handled the distribution, and both the campaign and the GRU dealt with WikiLeaks—and thus didn't have to deal directly with one another.

The full parameters of the relationship between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, as described by the report, remain obscure because of redactions. The redacted material involves the activities of Roger Stone, whose case is pending and who purported to serve as the intermediary between the campaign and WikiLeaks. That said, words readable between redactions make clear that:

“by late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.”

“While Trump and Gates were driving to LaGuardia Airport,” there was a phone call of some kind, and “shortly after the call candidate Trump told Gates that more release of damaging information would be coming”; and

Donald Trump Jr. had direct communications with WikiLeaks, which gave him the password to the website of an anti-Trump PAC and suggested social media material to promote.

In short, while this section does not describe Trump campaign conspiracy in the Russian hacks, it does describe direct engagement between the GRU and Stone; it describes both the campaign and the GRU seeking to coordinate with WikiLeaks on the release of information; and it describes the campaign being eager to retrieve what turned out to be fictitious emails and its agents being willing to deal with Russian hackers to get them. The president personally was involved in these latter two episodes, Mueller reports.

It’s a remarkable story, and it's not a flattering one. If nobody ran afoul of the law, the likiest explanation is the dumbest of dumb luck.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/notes-mueller-report-reading-diary
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,088
2,733
113
The investigation is concluded. The administration cooperated fully without invoking the executive privilege even once. The President was not charged. Where is your case?
1) Trump did not cooperate fully. He, with the help of his team of lawyers, submitted wholly "inadequate" written answers to Mueller's questions in addition to NOT making himself available to in person questioning. Trump's written responses included 30 replies of, "I don't recall. I can't remember."

2) Documents were deleted/destroyed by associates of Trump.

All of which puts the lie of 'the administration cooperated fully" to the test, which of course they failed.


The President COULD NOT be charged as Mueller referenced in his report due to DOJ OLC policy which he adhered to. Mueller noted the Constitutional authority of Congress to act on the oveerwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice times 10 AND that the evidence produced by the SC report be PRESERVED so that indictments on obstruction of justice against Donald J. Trump may proceed once he is booted out of the WH.

These are the facts.
 

doggystyle99

Well-known member
May 23, 2010
7,906
1,205
113
LOL!!! Idiotic. One of the "attempts" was tbe Comey firing. Even if you could indict the sitting President, the Supreme Court would laugh that charge right out. Even if Trump fired Comey because of the Russia suspicion( before the appointment of the Special Council) the lack of the underlying crime(the Russian Collusion) and the President's knowledge of the absence of crime makes Comey firing a straight exercise in the executive authority. In other words, no obstruction could have taken place in that sitiuation. Less MSNBC and more of your own judgement(if you have any), buddy.
Incorrect as usual but not surprised.
Let's see how many posts it will take for you to understand the following definition of Obstruction Of Justice.
I can make it simpler for you to understand but there is no fun in that. But seriously if you can't read the bold letters and understand what it says the problem is you.

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency

Codified U.S. law states that an "endeavour" to obstruct justice is considered an obstruction of justice.
 

doggystyle99

Well-known member
May 23, 2010
7,906
1,205
113
Correction. Mueller did speak to the AG before the report was completed as the AG revealed during his testimony on the Hill.
Thanks for that revealing information. But where did anyone make the assertion that Mueller did not speak to the AG before the report was completed?
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
1) Trump did not cooperate fully. He, with the help of his team of lawyers, submitted wholly "inadequate" written answers to Mueller's questions in addition to NOT making himself available to in person questioning. Trump's written responses included 30 replies of, "I don't recall. I can't remember."

2) Documents were deleted/destroyed by associates of Trump.

All of which puts the lie of 'the administration cooperated fully" to the test, which of course they failed.


The President COULD NOT be charged as Mueller referenced in his report due to DOJ OLC policy which he adhered to. Mueller noted the Constitutional authority of Congress to act on the oveerwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice times 10 AND that the evidence produced by the SC report be PRESERVED so that indictments on obstruction of justice against Donald J. Trump may proceed once he is booted out of the WH.

These are the facts.
Why didn't Mueller subpoena Trump? Oh yeah, he didn't have an actual crime to ask him about. If evidence was destroyed by Trump's associates, he should have indicted them. Trump didn't have to prove his innocence, Mueller was tasked to find evidence of crimes. He failed. Btw, Comey lost his memory 245 times in one congressional hearing.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
Incorrect as usual but not surprised.
Let's see how many posts it will take for you to understand the following definition of Obstruction Of Justice.
I can make it simpler for you to understand but there is no fun in that. But seriously if you can't read the bold letters and understand what it says the problem is you.

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency

Codified U.S. law states that an "endeavour" to obstruct justice is considered an obstruction of justice.
Comey told the President that he was not under investigation by the FBI. What did Trump obstruct by firing Comey?
 

doggystyle99

Well-known member
May 23, 2010
7,906
1,205
113
The investigation is concluded. The administration cooperated fully without invoking the executive privilege even once. The President was not charged. Where is your case?
Incorrect as usual.
The administration submitted written answers to questions, there was not an in person interview/questioning.
On many instances in the written answers Trump's answers were "I don't recall" or "I don't remember".
For a person who has claimed "I have one of the great memories of all time" Trump sure can't remember a lot of events surrounding the Russia investigation.
Again there were 10 instances of Obstruction of Justice which was referred to congress. As Mueller's basis for the report was that a sitting president cannot be indicted by the DOJ.
 

doggystyle99

Well-known member
May 23, 2010
7,906
1,205
113
Comey told the President that he was not under investigation by the FBI. What did Trump obstruct by firing Comey?
Again I know you are really obtuse but try reading and comprehending the bold parts in that post, it's right there for anyone with an IQ of at least 70 to understand. Here it is again.

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,750
17,572
113
Incorrect as usual.
Yes, Mueller said it would have delayed to release of the report if he tried to interview Trump as he would have to subpoena him and then wade through the inevitable legal challenges.

Also, the investigation is ongoing, with 14 more investigations referred by Mueller continuing.
Not to mention whether or not there is a counterintelligence investigation on Russian meddling still ongoing, as Mueller was only investigating criminal acts he couldn't indict.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts