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

a reply to: Sillyolme

Lol what impeachment?

We were told Mueller's impeccable investigation was finding all these things? Russia! Russia! We just have to wait for mueller. The special counsil coming to town..

And He's saying he cant indict?

But sure he's gonna be impeached.

How long will that take ?

a reply to: Lumenari

The truth is that has not been tested in a court of law.
However Mueller is going with traditional wisdom. If it's believed he will anyway.

a reply to: Lumenari

Not to mention what it would do to tee time.

a reply to: face23785

The OIG report is in the final review phase before its turned in as official. Apparently the OIG must immediately notify the head of the DOJ if he comes across any illegal / unethical acts. This is why Huber was appointed to work with the OIG.

Part of me wonders if this move by Mueller is because of the OIG report.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari

The truth is that has not been tested in a court of law.
However Mueller is going with traditional wisdom. If it's believed he will anyway.

It has not been tested because you cant indict a sitting President for exercising their constitutional authority... Collusion is not a crime in the federal body of law. Contacts with Russians occurred during transition. Potential crimes by come (Manafort for example) is not related to Trump-Russia. Because the President has the Constitutional authority to fire certain individuals in the executive branch without cause the termination of Comey was not a obstruction.

Any action taken by the President in their official capacity as President is protected by the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. Civil immunity was refined by Bill Clinton when he tried to claim sovereign immunity with regards to his women problems. Because they occurred prior to him becoming President sovereign immunity did not apply

We told you guys this from the start.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari

The truth is that has not been tested in a court of law.
However Mueller is going with traditional wisdom. If it's believed he will anyway.

It has not been tested because you cant indict a sitting President.

Any action taken by the President in their official capacity as President is protected by the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.

We told you guys this from the start.

Correct me if I am wrong, but sovereign immunity protects the government itself as an entity.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There is a massive amount of breaking news today. The reasoning behind the breaking news releases is that all participants are positioning.

The internal positioning occurring today: theconservativetreehouse.com...-149335

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari

The truth is that has not been tested in a court of law.
However Mueller is going with traditional wisdom. If it's believed he will anyway.

It has not been tested because you cant indict a sitting President.

Any action taken by the President in their official capacity as President is protected by the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.

We told you guys this from the start.

Correct me if I am wrong, but sovereign immunity protects the government itself as an entity.

In one aspect correct. The US government essentially has to agree to any legal action taken against it. It is also why you see the law suits against foreign government tossed by the courts. That same doctrine applies to those governments in US courts (exceptions exist).

The doctrine also applies to the President as well as Congress. Congress though has an advantage because it specifically spells out in the Constitution the immunity they have for actions taken during the course of their duties. They are also protected by the Speech and Debate clause.

If it was easy to sue the President can you imagine the mess it would cause? He would become a professional witness / defendant and nothing more.

It is why impeachment is a political question and not a legal question.

The SC report in its entirety will be provided to Congress so they can decide if impeachment is necessary.

*sigh*

Mueller can indict anyone he wants, via a Grand Jury which he has seated already, except a sitting President. A sitting President, based on multiple Supreme Court decisions handed down over hundreds of years, without exception, cannot be indicted for any reason. Donald Trump can take a machine gun down 5th Avenue and turn it into something out of Rambo, and he cannot be indicted as long as he is President. So could Obama. So could Bush. So could Clinton. So could Bush. So could Reagan. So could Carter. So could Nixon, et cetera, all the way back to... So could George Washington.

Accept it. It is what it is.

If Mueller finds criminal activity, or actually for any reason, the House of Representatives can impeach based on a 2/3 majority. If the House impeaches, the Senate has the choice of removing the sitting President from office, again, based on a 2/3 majority vote. Once that happens, the sitting President is no longer a sitting president and the law applies. Obama can now be indicted for criminal activity... so can Bush... so can Clinton... so can Bush... Reagan's dead, so he's safe.

This question came up when Clinton was President... the House impeached him for perjury, but the Senate did not remove him. It cam up under Nixon... his VP resigned and was pardoned, then he appointed Ford as VP who became President when Nixon resigned. It probably came up a dozen times before that, and each time the Supreme Court said the same thing:

A sitting President cannot be indicted for crimes.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Lumenari

No there's no law that says this. It's never been tested because we've never had a criminal president before. It's general!y thought that you can't because it could disrupt the running of the country. Not that an impeachment wouldn't do the same thing.
So now the question... if there is no criminal indictment does that remove the fifth amendment from the equation since there is no court of law to be incriminated in?
Meaning he has to answer and he still can't lie.

a reply to: face23785

He is correct isn't he.

Impeachment is a job for Congress.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: face23785

He is correct isn't he.

Impeachment is a job for Congress.

He is, to the best of my knowledge.

a reply to: introvert

It appears to be your opinion he is corrupt without any actual evidence he is...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
*sigh*

Mueller can indict anyone he wants, via a Grand Jury which he has seated already, except a sitting President. A sitting President, based on multiple Supreme Court decisions handed down over hundreds of years, without exception, cannot be indicted for any reason. Donald Trump can take a machine gun down 5th Avenue and turn it into something out of Rambo, and he cannot be indicted as long as he is President. So could Obama. So could Bush. So could Clinton. So could Bush. So could Reagan. So could Carter. So could Nixon, et cetera, all the way back to... So could George Washington.

Accept it. It is what it is.

If Mueller finds criminal activity, or actually for any reason, the House of Representatives can impeach based on a 2/3 majority. If the House impeaches, the Senate has the choice of removing the sitting President from office, again, based on a 2/3 majority vote. Once that happens, the sitting President is no longer a sitting president and the law applies. Obama can now be indicted for criminal activity... so can Bush... so can Clinton... so can Bush... Reagan's dead, so he's safe.

This question came up when Clinton was President... the House impeached him for perjury, but the Senate did not remove him. It cam up under Nixon... his VP resigned and was pardoned, then he appointed Ford as VP who became President when Nixon resigned. It probably came up a dozen times before that, and each time the Supreme Court said the same thing:

A sitting President cannot be indicted for crimes.

TheRedneck

Actually I believe it's only a simple majority to impeach in the House, but yes to convict in the Senate it's 2/3rds.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: face23785

Impeachment is a job for Congress.

All the more reason why this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... will remain relevant to the Nov 2018 mid-term elections.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari

No there's no law that says this. It's never been tested because we've never had a criminal president before.

Except for the Clintons and Obama.

Stormy Daniel's crooked attorney just told Anderson Cooper that Trump CAN be indicted for paying Stormy.
WTF universe does that guy live in? He's on CNN daily, hoping for some traction. Even Anderson is looking at Avenatti like he's crazy now, lol.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Try Nixon v. Fitzgerald

😳

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.

Mueller has indicted several people during this investigation. He has the authority to prosecute.

It's the FBI that can only recommend an indictment.

Or..that's my understanding, but I could be mistaken.

ETA: After reading the thread I see things are being obscured. To clarify, yes, Mueller can call a grand jury to have someone indicted and he has done that with Manafort, Flynn, etc...

Giuliani is suggesting Mueller cannot do the same to a sitting president.

a reply to: face23785

Do you honestly think that rules, laws, guidelines, morals, values, ethics, rights, are going to stop leftists from ousting the president?