Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, 2tall said:

"...Mueller is mistaken when he claims in his speech that the Constitution prevents him from indicting the president."

 

Mueller cannot indict anyone or anybody...his scope is limited to investigation only. Only GJ's can issue indictments.

Not true at all.  Mueller and his team indicted the Russians, Manafort, Flynn, Papadopoulous, and rest to a total of 34.  Butina and Cohen were indicted by other DoJ prosecutors.  Where did you get such an idea?

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, cmarshall said:

I don't think that reading of Mueller's statement is tenable, because the OLC policy statement, to which I posted a link above, does not actually take the position that indicting a sitting president is unconstitutional.  Indeed, if the OLC took that position a policy statement to the same effect would redundant and unnecessary.  The reasoning of the policy is that

 

...the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

 

This is not a constitutional claim at all, but based on a novel legal theory that has never been tested in a court.  So Mueller's claim that to indict a sitting president is unconstitutional is either his own opinion or his incorrect reading of the DoJ opinion.  The DoJ opinion is itself incorrect, because even if a criminal prosecution did undermine the execution of the duties of the executive branch, there is a remedy at hand in the 25th Amendment.

 

Well, here's a link to the article  that I failed to include before. It gathers the opinions of 16 legal scholars of various political stripes.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644304/robert-mueller-statement-donald-trump-russia

Several say that it is DOJ policy and none of them dispute that. In addition here's a link offered by one of them to a DOJ memorandum asserting just that. And according to the person who offered the link, it's just one of many.

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

[Opl]

4 hours ago, Kelsall said:

The Mueller report is not a balanced report; it is a prosecutorial document, and as such is very weak. 

 

The whole "Get Trump" effort has been a smear campaign, nothing more.  It was designed to cast doubt in the minds of voters in 2020.  It's not going to work.

 “ Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax,” the president tweeted. “And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn’t exist. So now the Dems and their partner, the Fake News Media,....”

Trump Twists Himself Into Knots Backtracking On Admission That Russia Helped Him Win

[smo]

I am also taken aback by "that is unconstitutional" coming out of Mueller's mouth, given him being a man who chooses his words judiciously (that's an understatement.) So why did he say that? Not out of ignorance. For an aside, the DOJ's "sitting president" policy only makes sense if we were back in the Middle Ages, but we are not. So if President Trump shoots someone on Fifth ave, we can't indict him?

 

Mueller's press conference is out two months late, why? He should have announced his job resignation on the day his report came out, so what stopping him? (maybe he couldn't.) I find him a weirdo, or to be kind or more probable, a man under (many) influences. His spine may not be as straight as we have been led to believe... From the NYT, "He just reiterates that he wants the evidence to speak for itself. The evidence, however, was not allowed to speak for itself, as he knows. The attorney general spoke for it."

 

Also who is he to think that : "I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter." Not so fast, private citizen Mueller, you will soon be subpoenaed to go to the House and read on live TV your whole report cover to cover. The House itself needs to start impeachment. We all know it will go nowhere, the Senate will make sure of that. But it's the kind of fight one has to go in, knowing one's doomed doing so. In this case it will allow the inquiries to take place and that's certainly will be excruciating and uncontrovertible. That's how we got our troops out of VN.

[heybruce]

13 hours ago, mogandave said:

I would recommend anyone that believes Mueller was barred (no pun intended) from coming to a conclusion due to DOJ policy read the Starr Report that (while operating under the same DOJ guidelines) clearly indicated that President Clinton was guilty of a number of crimes, including obstruction of justice.

 

Mueller did not come to a conclusion because the evidence was not there.

No, Mueller did not indict because the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel published the opinion in October 2000 that a sitting President can not be indicted.  Starr wasn't working under that constraint.

[heybruce]

13 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I’m not embarrassed.

If DOJ policy disallowed Mueller from coming to a conclusion, how is it he was allowed to come to a conclusion on the collusion charges?
 

Please identify where in the Mueller report this conclusion on collusion is given.  I think you are confusing reality with the rantings of pro-Trump pundits.

[heybruce]

13 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Yes, don’t be distracted by facts, stay focused on impeaching Trump.

Again, that Trump could not be indicted while in office did not disallow Mueller from reaching a conclusion.

It is worth noting Mueller did no say he was disallowed from coming to a conclusion, he only said it would not be fair to Trump.

How funny is that?

He said it would be unfair to charge Trump with obstruction when Trump could not be indicted and have his day in court.  Mueller was acting like an ethical legal professional, something Trump and his supporters can't understand.

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

Mr muller, consummate lawyer/investigator could not bring himself to completely exonerate the President because it was not the outcome HE wanted...he left the door open for endless continued investigations... 

 

He did not even mention the DNC involvement in paying foreign operatives to falsify scenarios to make Trump appear to be working with the Russians...using unvetted intel to obtain illegal court approval to spy on the Trump campaign...and then President...

 

Obstruction? Laughable!  HRC set the bar so high for obstruction that no one should ever be convicted of obstruction again...

 

Mr muller you have done a great disservice to your country...sullied your reputation and set in motion years on continuous bogus investigations...you should never show your face in public again!

What a bombshell! 

 

Please provide your evidence of "DNC involvement in paying foreign operatives to falsify scenarios to make Trump appear to be working with the Russians", it will blow this case wide open!

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, Kelsall said:

The Mueller report is not a balanced report; it is a prosecutorial document, and as such is very weak. 

 

The whole "Get Trump" effort has been a smear campaign, nothing more.  It was designed to cast doubt in the minds of voters in 2020.  It's not going to work.

Spoken like a man who has not read the report and isn't going to.

[Puchaiyank]

20 minutes ago, heybruce said:

What a bombshell! 

 

Please provide your evidence of "DNC involvement in paying foreign operatives to falsify scenarios to make Trump appear to be working with the Russians", it will blow this case wide open!

Standby, these matters are under serious scrutiny as we speak.  I predict notable heads will roll as a result of attempts to first derail a candidate for President...and then carry on work to have him removed from office...work which is still being conducted by Trump haters in the Democratic party today...

[heybruce]

23 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

Standby, these matters are under serious scrutiny as we speak.  I predict notable heads will roll as a result of attempts to first derail a candidate for President...and then carry on work to have him removed from office...work which is still being conducted by Trump haters in the Democratic party today...

In other words, your only evidence is that Trump said it was so.  And since Trump, a serial liar, is past due for telling the truth, maybe this time...

[cmarshall]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Well, here's a link to the article  that I failed to include before. It gathers the opinions of 16 legal scholars of various political stripes.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644304/robert-mueller-statement-donald-trump-russia

Several say that it is DOJ policy and none of them dispute that. In addition here's a link offered by one of them to a DOJ memorandum asserting just that. And according to the person who offered the link, it's just one of many.

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

Your point is not clear.  My objection was to your claim that when Mueller claimed that indicting the president would be unconstitutional he was merely articulating the DoJ position, not expressing his own view.  I disagreed pointing out that the DoJ policy does not claim that such an indictment would be unconstitutional, but forbids it for another, non-constitutional reason.  Therefore, it appears that Mueller was indeed expressing his own opinion on the constitutionality, which I believe is wrong on the face of it.  The Constitution does not bestow immunity on the president.

 

I realize that some scholars hold a different view, but our discussion was on what Mueller claims and whether his claims were based on DoJ policy or his own legal theory.

 

What is it you disagree with here?

[Tug]

The trump supporters sound more desperate every day lol more delusional by the minute as does Donald 

[Puchaiyank]

3 minutes ago, Tug said:

The trump supporters sound more desperate every day lol more delusional by the minute as does Donald 

You people having Trump impeached already...are the same people who were shocked when Trump was inaugurated instead of the life long government criminal Hillary...

 

Who appears more delusional here?   ????  

[mogandave]

Your point is not clear.  My objection was to your claim that when Mueller claimed that indicting the president would be unconstitutional he was merely articulating the DoJ position, not expressing his own view.  I disagreed pointing out that the DoJ policy does not claim that such an indictment would be unconstitutional, but forbids it for another, non-constitutional reason.  Therefore, it appears that Mueller was indeed expressing his own opinion on the constitutionality, which I believe is wrong on the face of it.  The Constitution does not bestow immunity on the president.
 
I realize that some scholars hold a different view, but our discussion was on what Mueller claims and whether his claims were based on DoJ policy or his own legal theory.
 
What is it you disagree with here?

As Mueller chooses his words carefully, and given his history and how well versed he must be on this topic, why would he claim it was unconstitutional? Clearly so-stating was not a mistake.

Two years ago it seems there were daily arguments about whether a sitting President could be indicted, and (if I remember correctly) they almost always concluded it would have to be decided by the courts.

[cmarshall]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

As Mueller chooses his words carefully, and given his history and how well versed he must be on this topic, why would he claim it was unconstitutional? Clearly so-stating was not a mistake.

Two years ago it seems there were daily arguments about whether a sitting President could be indicted, and (if I remember correctly) they almost always concluded it would have to be decided by the courts.

 

It's certain that Mueller did not merely misspeak.  I think Mueller and the others who take the view that indicting a sitting president is against the Constitution take that view, because they think it ought to be against the Constitution.  I believe that view to be untenable, because the Framers were very familiar with sovereign immunity of the kind George III enjoyed, which placed him above the law in all cases.  Had they wanted the president to be immune from prosecution they would have written some kind of immunity into the Constitution, but they didn't, pointedly, in my opinion.

 

The scholars opining on the issue merely point out that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide the issue, but that doesn't mean that they will necessarily decide it correctly.

 

Mueller's opinion on the subject carries no inherently greater weight that any of ours, even if he were a constitutional scholar, which he isn't.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

It's certain that Mueller did not merely misspeak.  I think Mueller and the others who take the view that indicting a sitting president is against the Constitution take that view, because they think it ought to be against the Constitution.  I believe that view to be untenable, because the Framers were very familiar with sovereign immunity of the kind George III enjoyed, which placed him above the law in all cases.  Had they wanted the president to be immune from prosecution they would have written some kind of immunity into the Constitution, but they didn't, pointedly, in my opinion.

 

The scholars opining on the issue merely point out that the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide the issue, but that doesn't mean that they will necessarily decide it correctly.

 

Mueller's opinion on the subject carries no inherently greater weight that any of ours, even if he were a constitutional scholar, which he isn't.

Again, Mueller was citing DOJ policy. Whether he subscribes to it or not is immaterial. Most legal scholars think that there is no constitutional basis for the DOJ's policy. I did provide you with a link and an article that cited eminent legal scholars who clearly disagree with you about the DOJ's stance on this issue.

[cmarshall]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Again, Mueller was citing DOJ policy. Whether he subscribes to it or not is immaterial. Most legal scholars think that there is no constitutional basis for the DOJ's policy.

Please cite the text of the DoJ policy that claims that indicting the president is actually forbidden by the Constitution.

 

Mueller in his speech did not merely say that he refused to indict because of DoJ policy.  He went further and made his own claim that to do so would be unconstitutional, which he didn't need to do.

[2tall]

9 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Not true at all.  Mueller and his team indicted the Russians, Manafort, Flynn, Papadopoulous, and rest to a total of 34.  Butina and Cohen were indicted by other DoJ prosecutors.  Where did you get such an idea?

"....Former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his longtime business associate Rick Gates were indicted by a federal grand jury on 12 charges, including conspiracy against the U.S ...."

 

https://nypost.com/2017/10/27/grand-jury-approves-first-charges-in-mueller-investigation/

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/paul-manafort-rick-gates-told-surrender-special-prosecutor-probe-n815536

 

 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Please cite the text of the DoJ policy that claims that indicting the president is actually forbidden by the Constitution.

This is from Diane Marie Amram, an eminent legal scholar:

"Like similar memos before it, a 2000 DOJ memorandum concluded that, even as the Constitution prescribes impeachment as a path for removal, it precludes indictment of a sitting president. That 2000 analysis hinged on a balancing of speculated interests."

I've already given you the link to it.

Here's the first paragraph of that memorandum

"In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution"

[cmarshall]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

This is from Diane Marie Amram, an eminent legal scholar:

"Like similar memos before it, a 2000 DOJ memorandum concluded that, even as the Constitution prescribes impeachment as a path for removal, it precludes indictment of a sitting president. That 2000 analysis hinged on a balancing of speculated interests."

I've already given you the link to it.

Here's the first paragraph of that memorandum

"In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution"

Well, yes, I guess it is possible to say that the policy does claim to interpret the Constitution.  I myself consider that claim to be lacking any basis in the Constitution, most obviously because it does not cite any controlling text of the Constitution.  Vice President Spiro Agnew was indicted for tax evasion while still in office, although that was prior to both DoJ memos.  The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Paula Jones to bring her civil lawsuit against then President Clinton.  It's hardly clear that a civil lawsuit imposes any inherently lesser burden on the defendant than a criminal prosecution.  

 

So, maybe Mueller accepts that contention in the policy.

[cmarshall]

29 minutes ago, 2tall said:

"....Former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his longtime business associate Rick Gates were indicted by a federal grand jury on 12 charges, including conspiracy against the U.S ...."

 

https://nypost.com/2017/10/27/grand-jury-approves-first-charges-in-mueller-investigation/

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/paul-manafort-rick-gates-told-surrender-special-prosecutor-probe-n815536

 

 

Now I understand.  You are arguing a minor point of semantics.  It's true that the grand jury indicts.  It's also true that the grand juries in question were convened by the Special Counsel whose prosecutors presented evidence calling for the grand jury to indict, which in every case they did.  We normally elide the description to "the prosecutor indicted," because the action originated with the prosecutor even though it was carried out by the grand jury under the direction of the prosecutor.  The grand jury has no power to originate investigations on its own or to bring indictments against targets of its own choosing.  

 

So, is there a larger point here?  Do you imagine that there is any sense in which Mueller and his team did not initiate charges against the defendants and were mere bystanders of some sort?

[ballpoint]

This AP article has more on what Mueller actually said, plus an embedded video of his speech:

 

"If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller declared.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/trump-erupts-after-special-counsel-says-hes-not-exonerated/ar-AAC9Xzx?ocid=spartanntp

[Scott]

Baiting posts removed.   Stay on topic.  

 

[mogandave]

Well, yes, I guess it is possible to say that the policy does claim to interpret the Constitution.  I myself consider that claim to be lacking any basis in the Constitution, most obviously because it does not cite any controlling text of the Constitution.  Vice President Spiro Agnew was indicted for tax evasion while still in office, although that was prior to both DoJ memos.  The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Paula Jones to bring her civil lawsuit against then President Clinton.  It's hardly clear that a civil lawsuit imposes any inherently lesser burden on the defendant than a criminal prosecution.  
 
So, maybe Mueller accepts that contention in the policy.

While I agree with you, could an argument not be made that the burden is less, because regardless of the results in a civil suit, the President could not be incarcerated?

[cmarshall]

19 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

While I agree with you, could an argument not be made that the burden is less, because regardless of the results in a civil suit, the President could not be incarcerated?

 

There is no constitutional reason that a president convicted of a crime could not be incarcerated even without his removal from office.  The remedy at hand is the 25th Amendment which provides that when the president in unable to carry out his duties those duties, but not the office, are transferred to the vice president, until such time as the president can resume fulfilling his duties as laid out in the Amendment.  The Amendment was adopted after Kennedy's assassination and Eisenhower's strokes while in office, not with a view toward coping with the incarceration of a president, but the remedy is available and appropriate nevertheless.

 

The test of this issue is likely to come from NY AG Laetitia James who is conducting various investigations into Trump's financial crimes in her jurisdiction.  Note that Mueller yesterday only claimed that a sitting president cannot be indicted for federal crimes, carefully excluding crimes in other jurisdictions.  

 

But the Supreme Court would have to decide whether to allow a state prosecution to proceed against Trump and they may well decide on political grounds rather than on the merits.

[JHolmesJr]

Bottom Line from Mueller:

 

My carefully gathered evidence does not pass muster in proving you guilty...

but I cannot bring myself to declare you innocent.

 

LOL. Trump's lawyers will destroy that argument.

 

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Bottom Line from Mueller:

 

My carefully gathered evidence does not pass muster in proving you guilty...

but I cannot bring myself to declare you innocent.

 

LOL. Trump's lawyers will destroy that argument.

 

Another mind reader. I guess when your reading skills aren't all they should be, mind-reading is all you've got left.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 10:31 AM, webfact said:

In his first public comments since starting the investigation in May 2017, Mueller said Justice Department policy prevented him from bringing charges against a sitting president

While he would not bring charges himself he could have stated which high crimes and misdemeanours he considered Trump had committed. By muddying the water with stupid statements he still brings anti Trump confusion to the political scene, which IMO has been his plan all along. IMO he realised long ago there was nothing he could bring against Trump on the Russian collusion front, so he decided to carry out a political campaign against Trump by other means. IMO he has been very successful in that.

 

I just hope Nancy does go down the impeachment path. Nothing will do more to bring Trump a win next year, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

Bottom Line from Mueller:

 

My carefully gathered evidence does not pass muster in proving you guilty...

but I cannot bring myself to declare you innocent.

 

LOL. Trump's lawyers will destroy that argument.

 

IMO there was no way Mueller was going to let Trump off, despite having no sufficient evidence of a crime by Trump, and he knows, IMO, that proclaiming Trump guilty of something would backfire, so he chose to put out a statement that would not clear Trump, but would leave the suspicion of a crime that the resistance could seize on, despite there being no crime.