TLTR.
But if portions are cited, that's easy for everyone to address.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mueller Report Released. Thoughts?
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
But if portions are cited, that's easy for everyone to address.
The Mueller report has this all in it, and more.
In an average week, how many pages would you estimate that you read on this board alone?
I wouldn't.
But additional reading would interfere with time here.
I wouldn't deprive everyone of that.
You're not required to cite anything.
It's just advice / a request for everyone.
Is there something specific you want me to reference at this time?
When I first started reading it it was on a website that was difficult to quote or search. I eventually downloaded the Kindle version which is much easier.
Post #114 would benefit from a link for the cover-up.
Ok. Below I quote post 114 and also post 118. Below that the Mueller Report.
Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation.
Two days after directing McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one in the Oval Office with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, a trusted advisor outside the government, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. The message said that Sessions should publicly announce that, notwithstanding his recusal from the Russia investigation, the investigation was “very unfair” to the President, the President had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and “let [him] move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.” Lewandowski said he understood what the President wanted Sessions to do.
The thing I am most curious about is this idea, tacitly admitted by Mueller, that the President cannot be indicted. I find this a fascinating notion...I mean, if POTUS, on camera, walked into the House to deliver the SOTU address, and shot the Speaker in the head, he could not be indicted? If the answer to this question is "yes, he could," then it follows that POTUS can be indicted, and that somehow it's just the magnitude of the crime that's at issue, which I find laughable.
And if the answer is, "no, he could not be indicted," then, as Mr. Bumble says, "if the law supposes that, then the law is a *** -- a idiot !"
And if the answer is, "no, he could not be indicted," then, as Mr. Bumble says, "if the law supposes that, then the law is a *** -- a idiot !"
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The Constitution is unclear on that and since the Justice Department does not wish to get too involved in politics their current standard is that a sitting President is not indictable. That doe not mean that he could not be indicted once he leaves office. That is one of the reasons that Nixon struck a deal with Ford when he left. Trump might be wise to do the same:
Can a sitting U.S. president face criminal charges? - Reuters
By the way, such an extreme event as you cited probably would cause a change in policy. Right now it seems that as far as crimes of the sort that Trump may be guilty of that if there is no impeachment and trial that the department will go with a wait and see attitude.
Well, one quote says, "the indictment of criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
Well, perhaps, but so would the president's death, or incapacity due to such a thing as being in a coma -- or even removal from office. The constitution provides quite nicely for those eventualities, and I suspect that if it ever came to SCOTUS, that is how they would reason. Therefore I rather think that the idea that a sitting President can't be indicted is a self-inflicted limitation on a free people...one that could easily be settled by trying it.
There is no law that says a sitting President can’t be indicted, no part of the constitution either. It is nothing more or less than a “policy”. And it has never been tested.
And the President can be indicated for crimes committed in office after he (or she) leaves office, provided the statute of limitations had not run out.
And btw, the statute of limitations for obstruction of justice is 5 years.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I agree, and if a significant enough of a crime was done, such as your murder example, he would be tried. Crimes that appear to be largely political are the ones that probably would not be tried.
And another problem is that this case would go all the way to the Supreme Court. With two Trump appointees making the court definitely conservative, and those two probably picked because their pasts indicate that they do not think that a sitting president can be indicted I would not give too much hope for a minor crime every being indicted while Trump is in office. I do wish it was the other way around, but one must be pragmatic at times.
This particular quote doesn't show that Trump knew of Russian interference.
But it does show intent to thwart the investigation.
This is a very interesting analysis.
In a nutshell, it says that Mueller does not recognize in himself the authority to decide that Trump, while still formally the POTUS, commited a crime, regardless of any actual facts; he insists that such a role falls to others, presumably Congress or Trump himself, and that his role is instead to compile the evidence for such a time when Trump is no longer in that position of authority.
In a nutshell, it says that Mueller does not recognize in himself the authority to decide that Trump, while still formally the POTUS, commited a crime, regardless of any actual facts; he insists that such a role falls to others, presumably Congress or Trump himself, and that his role is instead to compile the evidence for such a time when Trump is no longer in that position of authority.
esmith
Veteran Member
Hmmm; seems that the head of the FBI decided that he had the authority to dismiss possible wrongdoing, but we don't hear any caterwauling about that.
I always thought the FBI only investigated possible crimes not take on the job as a prosecutor.
Shad
Veteran Member
General policing does this. Why would this be an exception to the rule? It is a reason why we have courts, judges and defense lawyers.
Shad
Veteran Member
The is a major conflict of power at play between States and Feds behind the general idea. The case would need to be a slam dunk for there to be any test in my view.
It is more of a tradition regarding conduct and unwillingness to start the conflict I stated above.
At this point, I figure that you have developed impressive perception filtering skills, so I don't think that what you hear or fail to means much either way.
That is a very serious challenge for you right wingers at this moment in history.
That said, I honestly don't know who you are talking about. Surely not Mueller, so who?
That is correct.
That is certainly true. But I don't think that I can fault Mueller for (apparently) believing (quite correctly far as I can tell) that there would hell of political pressure to pay had he decided to test the policy all by himself.
Ultimately, law is a political tool. It is for politicians to deal with the fallout of deciding what it is supposed to mean exactly.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Long read indeed!
But I'll go with Alan Dershowitz's opinion because he seems to be the most qualified and the best predictor with regards to the entire mess. And he predicted, "this report would be very critical of the president but would not find evidence of illegal collusion or obstruction of justice." And.. he's right, the report is very critical of Trump but it can't find any Obstruction of Justice or Evidence of Illegal Collusion. And he's also commented on the media coverage of the report:
"I think a flunk. Even with the grade inflation, I just think the media comes off awful, terrible, for the most part. I think we're seeing an elimination of the distinction between the editorial page and the news pages in some of the leading media in the country, and that is a shame. Walter Cronkite could not get a job in the media today."
His words, not mine. I'm curious, for anyone who disagrees with Alan Dershowitz... who are you relying on to give you the fair shake on what's happening? Please don't say you are relying on RF!