Mueller's team told President's legal team they cannot indict a sitting President

This is really gonna ruin some folks' days.

Using CNN so nobody cries that I linked to Fox

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has informed President Donald Trump's attorneys that they have concluded that they cannot indict a sitting president, according to the President's lawyer.

"All they get to do is write a report," Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told CNN. "They can't indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us."

That conclusion is likely based on longstanding Justice Department guidelines. It is not about any assessment of the evidence Mueller's team has compiled.

This shouldn't really be news to anyone, but it is, so I'm posting it. Basically Mueller will turn over any "evidence" he finds to Congress and they will decide whether or not to impeach the President over it.

While its true....one wonders what 2018 will bring.

a reply to: face23785

Do you know how many people are going to skip over the part about how this is not based on any assessment of evidence and go straight to the parts about how they can't indicte which means they must feel like they ought to?

"This case is essentially over," Giuliani said. "They're just in denial."

It was all just a political witch hunt to keep the false meme going that Trump is bad somehow. They want to drag it into the midterms.

It is backfiring and Trump support has grown the whole time, and some of that gained support is directly from the Mueller corrupt investigation.

As we discovered with Comey regarding Hillary, they indeed do not make the indictment. What they do is to produce a report and make a recommendation to indict or not indict based on that report. We all remember that Comey did not recommend indictment for Hillary.

So, this isn’t anything we don’t already know.

"If the charge doesn't fit, you must acquit" - Semi-quote from the OJ Trial (I know it was really about the glove).

Let them write their report, and conclude this "investigation". Then, Congress can take it from there, as the legal process outlines. However, I await the cries that it will take too long or will be unfair....from the Democratic chorus.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Oh yea, Twitter is all awash in the "impeach!" outcries.

./sigh really is sad reading comprehension and understanding of law are no longer common knowledge.

True, they can't. It's law.

"All they get to do is write a report," Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told CNN. "They can't indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us."

But why go to "battle" begging for acknowledgment over something they know is the law? Paranoid? Or very, very worried?

lol. So obvious. Indictment follows impeachment. Or in Clinton's case, Not.

a reply to: face23785

Hey - this is coincidental......





Mark Meadows - twitter

a reply to: Cygnis

If Mueller's report is not favorable, that might very well become a reality. But we will have to wait and wait some more,
to see.

The fact is, is that a prosecutor...any prosecutor, can't indict anybody. Only a grand jury can.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
As we discovered with Comey regarding Hillary, they indeed do not make the indictment. What they do is to produce a report and make a recommendation to indict or not indict based on that report. We all remember that Comey did not recommend indictment for Hillary.

So, this isn’t anything we don’t already know.

I guess there is something you don't know.

You cannot indict a sitting President. You cannot bring criminal prosecution against a sitting President, no matter how hard you squish your eyes together and pray differently.

You can impeach a sitting President for high crimes or treason, which just removes him from office. THEN you can bring criminal charges.

Hillary, if you remember, was not President.

Apples and witches.

Hope I helped your misconception of American Constitutional law.

a reply to: Lumenari

I thought Senate CAN convict if House impeaches.... No?

(Eta: Not from DOJ, but it’s still criminal, isn’t it? (The hypothetical I gave, if plausible.))

a reply to: face23785

That makes sense, but as you say, Trump can still be impeached. Still, good to know he can't be indicted for sure. Although I suspected as much, it is good to know for certain.

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: Lumenari

I thought Senate CAN convict if House impeaches.... No?

(Eta: Not from DOJ, but it’s still criminal, isn’t it? (The hypothetical I gave, if plausible.))

Only if he/she is removed from office.

Presidents have generally claimed absolute immunity, meaning that, except for impeachment proceedings, they can personally ignore all other processes of law. Most of the early executive immunity cases involved the role of presidents as witnesses or potential witnesses and such a role is not usually vital to the process of another branch. Thus, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), neither President Thomas Jefferson nor Secretary of State James Madison (the nominal defendant) appeared in Court even through an attorney. In Aaron Burr's 1806 trial for treason, Jefferson was permitted by Chief Justice John Marshall, riding circuit, to reply to all questions in written form.

The high-water mark of presidential immunity was Mississippi v. Johnson (1867), in which the Supreme Court refused to hear an argument for an injunction against presidential enforcement of a statute. The decision's strong language against judicial direction of presidential power as "an absurd and excessive extravagance" has generally been assumed to deny judicial authority of this type, although the opinion expressly reserves the question of whether a president may be forced to perform the rather small number of ministerial duties of that office (p. 499). In any event, the language of Mississippi v. Johnson is construed by critics of presidential authority like as merely arguing the prudence of judicial and not as setting constitutional limits.

The reasoning behind it is that if litigation or criminal proceedings are set upon a sitting President it will interfere with his Constitutional duties. He would have to mount a legal defense and take the time to defend himself in court. Thus taking the time away from him running the country.

Which makes sense, especially in this age of frivolous lawsuits and legal maneuvering in politics.

a reply to: face23785


Legal scholars have said this on Fox News for many months. Congress can indict a President. Maybe those 64 butt-hurt losers in Congress who signed the "Impeach Trump" petition last week can get him booted, since Mueller can't.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: face23785

That makes sense, but as you say, Trump can still be impeached. Still, good to know he can't be indicted for sure. Although I suspected as much, it is good to know for certain.

If he has committed crimes, you don't think he should be held accountable for them?

a reply to: Lumenari

That is not different from anything I said. The indictment isn’t going to come from Mueller. Just like I said. There’s no shocking news here.

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: Lumenari

I thought Senate CAN convict if House impeaches.... No?

(Eta: Not from DOJ, but it’s still criminal, isn’t it? (The hypothetical I gave, if plausible.))

No, here is the order of the process.

1) The House Impeaches then,

2) The Senate can remove the President from office if they have 2/3 majority vote.

After he is a regular citizen then the person can be indicted.

If the POTUS is never removed from his seat as President, he can not be indicted while President.

Bill Clinton got impeached by the House but the Senate never acted because they knew they could never get 2/3 vote required to remove him. Impeachment that stops after the House is just a negative mark on the record, it is basically meaningless as in Bill Clinton's case.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: kaylaluv
As we discovered with Comey regarding Hillary, they indeed do not make the indictment. What they do is to produce a report and make a recommendation to indict or not indict based on that report. We all remember that Comey did not recommend indictment for Hillary.

So, this isn’t anything we don’t already know.

I guess there is something you don't know.

You cannot indict a sitting President. You cannot bring criminal prosecution against a sitting President, no matter how hard you squish your eyes together and pray differently.

You can impeach a sitting President for high crimes or treason, which just removes him from office. THEN you can bring criminal charges.

Hillary, if you remember, was not President.

Apples and witches.

Hope I helped your misconception of American Constitutional law.

...and for those who actually know a little about what "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" actually represents the bar for impeachment is very high and will not be undertaken without strong evidence.