Do you think Mueller should be fired?

[phrodeau]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/us/politics/robert-mueller-questions-trump.html


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/us/politics/questions-mueller-wants-to-ask-trump-russia.html

There’s some news being made in those questions.

 

[Rightguide]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/us/politics/robert-mueller-questions-trump.html


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/us/politics/questions-mueller-wants-to-ask-trump-russia.html

There’s some news being made in those questions.

Most of it is bullshit. The President doesn't have to answer any question that goes to his thinking in executing his lawful authority.

Mueller allegedly threatened to drag the President before a Grand Jury. Be advised, this would be in violation of the findings of the 1973 DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel and reaffirmed in 2000, which found the President immune to indictment and prosecution while in office:

https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm

 

[Aglaopheme]

Most of it is bullshit. The President doesn't have to answer any question that goes to his thinking in executing his lawful authority.

Mueller allegedly threatened to drag the President before a Grand Jury. Be advised, this would be in violation of the findings of the 1973 DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel and reaffirmed in 2000, which found the President immune to indictment and prosecution while in office:

https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm

Be advised:

Sitting Presidents have responded to court orders to provide testimony and other information with sufficient frequency that such interactions between the Judicial and Executive Branches can scarcely be thought a novelty. President Monroe responded to written interrogatories, President Nixon … produced tapes in response to a subpoena duces tecum, President Ford complied with an order to give a deposition in a criminal trial, and President Clinton has twice given videotaped testimony in criminal proceedings. Moreover, sitting Presidents have also voluntarily complied with judicial requests for testimony. President Grant gave a lengthy deposition in a criminal case under such circumstances, and President Carter similarly gave videotaped testimony for use at a criminal trial.

 

[Comshaw]

Most of it is bullshit. The President doesn't have to answer any question that goes to his thinking in executing his lawful authority.

Mueller allegedly threatened to drag the President before a Grand Jury. Be advised, this would be in violation of the findings of the 1973 DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel and reaffirmed in 2000, which found the President immune to indictment and prosecution while in office:

https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm

Be advised:

Sitting Presidents have responded to court orders to provide testimony and other information with sufficient frequency that such interactions between the Judicial and Executive Branches can scarcely be thought a novelty. President Monroe responded to written interrogatories, President Nixon … produced tapes in response to a subpoena duces tecum, President Ford complied with an order to give a deposition in a criminal trial, and President Clinton has twice given videotaped testimony in criminal proceedings. Moreover, sitting Presidents have also voluntarily complied with judicial requests for testimony. President Grant gave a lengthy deposition in a criminal case under such circumstances, and President Carter similarly gave videotaped testimony for use at a criminal trial.

https://m.popkey.co/a45e41/0DzDv.gif



Comshaw

 

[Rightguide]

Be advised:

All of which doesn't refute anything I posted.

 

[phrodeau]

Latest news is that Trump’s legal team doesn’t have the security clearance they need to represent him to Mueller’s investigation. He hires all the best people.

 

[Pookie]

Latest news is that Trump’s legal team doesn’t have the security clearance they need to represent him to Mueller’s investigation. He hires all the best people.

And now his lead lawyer is going to retire at the end of the month.

 

[Hypoxia]

And now his lead lawyer is going to retire at the end of the month.

And the new lead worked for Wee Willie Clinton to avoid impeachment. Ummm, that's not a great resumé item, since Wee Willie WAS impeached and tried. But Tromp hires only The Best. We'll see how that grand jury thang works out.

 

[Aglaopheme]

All of which doesn't refute anything I posted.

Um, the president will have to answer questions. His motivation is key. Ha! Just ask Giuliani.

“He fired Comey because Comey would not, among other things, say that he wasn’t a target of the investigation,” the former New York City mayor, who recently joined Trump’s legal team, told Fox News’s Sean Hannity. “He’s entitled to that. Hillary Clinton got that and he couldn’t get that. So he fired him and he said, ‘I’m free of this guy.’”

No, no chaos over there at all.
I said he said that.

He didn’t say that?

No reason to dispute that.

He said I could say that.

No, no he didn’t.

Thanks! Last night was great!

 

[Amoebah]

I think you should show Mueller your vagina.

We'll cover our eyes....okay, now.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Oh look, it’s Lit’s longest running incel trying to get attention. There, there wee one.

 

[Amoebah]

You mean "single cell".

Show us your meat flaps!

 

[Rightguide]

Um, the president will have to answer questions. His motivation is key. Ha! Just ask Giuliani.

No he doesn't have to answer. He can fire Comey for wearing the wrong color tie if he wants to, he can fire Mueller as well. and there can be no obstruction of justice when the President is exercising his constitutional authority. Mueller is a subordinate of the President, as are everyone in the DOJ. He doesn't have to sit there and allow a subordinate to grill him about what was in his mind when he exercised his Art. II authority. He can demand Mueller specify federal statutes he is alleged to have violated and like every other American he has the right to remain silent and refuse to answer any questions by Mueller. According to DOJ rules I posted yesterday Mueller cannot indict or prosecute the President while he is in office.

 

[Sean]

there can be no obstruction of justice when the President is exercising his constitutional authority.

This is dumb even by counsellor Vettebigot standards.

 

[about_average]

According to DOJ rules I posted yesterday Mueller cannot indict or prosecute the President while he is in office.

From what I saw you posted links to the opinions of a couple of people. SCOTUS will likely be the people who decide if the president can be prosecuted while in office.

 

[cowslinger64]

No he doesn't have to answer. He can fire Comey for wearing the wrong color tie if he wants to, he can fire Mueller as well. and there can be no obstruction of justice when the President is exercising his constitutional authority. Mueller is a subordinate of the President, as are everyone in the DOJ. He doesn't have to sit there and allow a subordinate to grill him about what was in his mind when he exercised his Art. II authority. He can demand Mueller specify federal statutes he is alleged to have violated and like every other American he has the right to remain silent and refuse to answer any questions by Mueller. According to DOJ rules I posted yesterday Mueller cannot indict or prosecute the President while he is in office.

Wonder if vette would be saying the same things if this was Obama..


Nah, I don't really wonder.


This idiot is making a mockery of the position of president..

 

[Rightguide]

From what I saw you posted links to the opinions of a couple of people. SCOTUS will likely be the people who decide if the president can be prosecuted while in office.

This is a DOJ finding by the office of legal counsel written in 1973 after the Nixon debacle and reaffirmed in 2000. It's still in effect today and the SCOTUS doesn't tell the DOJ who to prosecute.:

https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf

 

[Rightguide]

This is dumb even by counsellor Vettebigot standards.

I'd venture to say "Vettebigot" was a towering intellect compared to yours. Right now, I'll prove I am too. You dumb son of a bitch:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...stice-for-exercising-his-constitutional-power

 

[BoyNextDoor]

According to DOJ rules I posted yesterday Mueller cannot indict or prosecute the President while he is in office.

The old "A SITTING PRESIDENT’S AMENABILITY TO INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION" ?

Clinton was deposed in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual misconduct lawsuit and Trump can and will be deposed as well.

If that leads to what would otherwise be an indictment for a non-President the question will be if the issue rises to high crimes. I'd say violation of election law by accepting value from a foreign power, especially and adversary, would rise to that standard.

 

[Rightguide]

The old "A SITTING PRESIDENT’S AMENABILITY TO INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION" ?

Clinton was deposed in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual misconduct lawsuit and Trump can and will be deposed as well.

If that leads to what would otherwise be an indictment for a non-President the question will be if the issue rises to high crimes. I'd say violation of election law by accepting value from a foreign power, especially and adversary, would rise to that standard.

Don't be a clueless dope by presenting a non sequitur. Trump hasn't committed a crime, he's not being accused of a crime, a federal court would toss this sham right out the friggin' door if Mueller tried to bring charges that Trump refused to discuss his state of mind while exercising his lawful authority. Mueller has nothing, he knows it. You need to know what Mueller and everyone else knows. Trump is not going to be brought before a grand jury for anything that has occurred up until now.

 

[Rightguide]

The old "A SITTING PRESIDENT’S AMENABILITY TO INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION" ?

Clinton was deposed in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual misconduct lawsuit and Trump can and will be deposed as well.

If that leads to what would otherwise be an indictment for a non-President the question will be if the issue rises to high crimes. I'd say violation of election law by accepting value from a foreign power, especially and adversary, would rise to that standard.

Here's the reaffirmation by the same office in 2000:

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm

 

[Rightguide]

The old "A SITTING PRESIDENT’S AMENABILITY TO INDICTMENT AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION" ?

Clinton was deposed in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual misconduct lawsuit and Trump can and will be deposed as well.

If that leads to what would otherwise be an indictment for a non-President the question will be if the issue rises to high crimes. I'd say violation of election law by accepting value from a foreign power, especially and adversary, would rise to that standard.

Clinton rejected the subpoena which was withdrawn by mutual consent. He decided to do a video deposition, but that was a civil case not a criminal issue.

There is no "evidence" of election law violation by the President, none. If you're referring to the Daniels matter, all his lawyer has to do is say Trump paid the money to Stormy to protect his marriage and leave it up to clueless prosecutors to prove different in court. Not going to happen.

There is only one way to remove Trump under the Constitution, impeachment. No inferior officer of the executive branch can remove the President. Mueller cannot trigger the 25th Amendment and he does not have the authority to seek an impeachment report, none whatsoever. So all of your wet dreams are going to be dry, sorry.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Dude, you don’t know anything for certain. Your blind assertations are slightly frightening.

 

[Hypoxia]

Can a sitting POTUS preside from a prison cell if they leave him his tweeting phone?

 

[Rightguide]

Dude, you don’t know anything for certain. Your blind assertations are slightly frightening.

I know more about it than you know.

My assertions are based on the law and only frightening to people like you who don't understand it. I'm going to predict right now, Mueller will not subpoena President Trump and attempt to bring him before a grand jury. Because he knows Trump will ignore it and take it to the SCOTUS where Mueller, his overstep, his conspiracy, his existence as a Special Prosecutor, will be exposed as corrupt and unconstitutional.

Again, the President cannot be indicted or prosecuted while in office. This doesn't come from me but from the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel. Mueller is an employee of the DOJ and he is governed by these rules as are everyone else in the DOJ.

Again, Mueller's mandate does not give him the authority to conduct an investigation to support an impeachment report. Mueller is an inferior government officer of the government and doesn't have the authority to compel the President to do anything. the Presidency isn't just a person, it is an institution, separate but equal, to the Congress and the SCOTUS. The only force in the government who can move the sitting President is the Congress. If you had read the findings of the Office of Legal Counsel, findings that have stood through both Republican and Democrat administrations, you would know this.

Mueller's "investigation" is a farce. It was instituted illegally. It violated the Special Prosecutor law and the DOJ regulations on the appointment of Special Prosecutors. It was based on politically manufactured lies sworn to and submitted as legitimate "intelligence" to a federal court judge, in order to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on an American citizen, for alleged crimes that do not exist in law, and for which no evidence has been produced to date.

All of this is now in the public domain. A number of highly respected lawyers, a former highly ranked United States Attorney and former Special Prosecutor himself, have all made the points I just described. All you need to do is pay attention them and not to CNN.