Trump attorneys' letter to Mueller spells out legal arguments ...

a reply to: Xcathdra

He can pardon himself.

Wrong.


Link Direct DL from Justice.gov

Addendum

But nice attempt at talking points and the usual spin.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The dictatorship comes when the rule of law is ignored. Ignoring the constitution and Supreme Court rulings solely because they dont support your agenda is

That's funny.

The people ignoring the Constitution and the rule of law in favor of "their guy" complaining about how the Constitution and rule of law should be followed, while claiming it's being ignored and abused by the other side. Trumpian tactics all around, which is not surprising. "I am above the law. I can pardon myself for whatever crime I commit."

But nice re-writing and spin of reality and facts. That's expected, the futile efforts to see what sticks when there is little other recourse.

It would be funny if not so pathetic.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Xcathdra

You realize that this has all been litigated already, and your 'argument' has been found to be total legal hogwash, don't you?

Feel free to cite your sources where this has already been litigated.

Or are you hoping you arent challenged on the misinformation you just tried to pass as fact?

I don't have easy access to the actual court documents, so I'll just have to give you a link to a newspaper article about it:

Manafort’s Lawsuit Taking Aim at Mueller Is Tossed Out of Court

Yeah that is the case taking place in the Federal DC circuit. The other is in Virginia and judge ellis has not ruled yet.

So no it has not been litigated nor settled yet.

a reply to: Liquesence

Nope -

Your link is the guideline from 1974 DOJ and is an opinion.

Again Presidential pardons is a constitutional power delegated solely to the President. It cannot be restricted.

Also if you look at DOJ guidelines it also says a person must be convicted of a federal crime, served more than 5 years of their sentence to then qualify to request a pardon.

A guideline that the President is not restricted by.

a reply to: Liquesence

So just as the same in other threads you can counter facts and resort to dismissal of facts solely because they dont support your agenda.

check.

As for your asinine comment about being above the law you apparently never read the entire opinion regarding Nixon. His legal argument was the President is immune from criminal and civil actions taken against him ONLY during his tenure as the President.

That argument is supported by the impeachment clause of the Constitution which requires impeachment before criminal prosecution. Nixons legal teams argument and supporting documentation was not enough to convince the court since they argued solely on the executive privilege point. However scotus noted that had more evidence been provided then Nixons argument would have prevailed. They also left the question open, choosing to only rule on the topic in regards to Nixon.

Knowledge is your friend and ignorance is a choice.



lawandcrime.com...

Here is something else to chew on. Everybody that is hanging their hats on the idea that Mueller has said that Trump is 'not a Target at this time' really, I mean REALLY, should make an effort to understand what he is saying (and not saying).

SOURCE: Duffy Law:
What’s The Difference Between a Federal Target, Subject, and Witness?

A federal criminal investigation is a virtual danger zone for the unwary. Even if you believe you’ve done nothing improper, you should never assume that the government sees the situation the same way. And if you are worried that you did something wrong, it is unwise to think that you can finesse the situation or explain away the problem on your own.

All individuals coming into the orbit of the federal prosecutor and grand jury fall into one of three categories: witness, subject or target. It is crucial to understand your status in a federal investigation to make the right decisions.

• Witness: Being a witness in a case involving the FBI, Secret Service, IRS or other Federal Agency does not necessarily mean that you observed or saw a crime happen. You may have information that law enforcement believes might be relevant in a criminal investigation to help prove either the guilt or the innocence of another individual or business. Although you may only be a witness, it’s critical to recognize that if you speak to Federal law enforcement your words are not protected without a proffer agreement and should you make a misrepresentation, you can be charged with the crimes of Lying to a Federal Agent[1] and Obstruction of Justice, each of which is punishable by as much as five years in a Federal penitentiary

• Subject of an Investigation: The term “subject of an investigation” has a particular meaning within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). According to the DOJ Handbook[2], a “subject” is: “a person whose conduct is within the scope of a Grand Jury’s investigation.” A subject is somewhere between a target and a witness. [B]A subject has engaged in conduct that may look suspicious or unethical, but the prosecutor isn’t certain that a provable crime has been committed and wants to do more investigating in order to be sure.[/B]

• Target: The term “target of an investigation” is also specifically defined by the DOJ. [B]A person is a target where the prosecutor or Grand Jury has substantial evidence linking him to the commission of a crime. Designation as a target provides a clear warning of a person’s criminal exposure.

Even though your status as a witness, subject or target may be important in guiding your strategy during a particular phase of a federal white collar crime investigation, the key thing to remember about these categories is that they are ultimately meaningless and offer you no protection. Why? Because even if you’re currently a witness or subject, there’s no guarantee that your status will remain unchanged. It is necessary, therefore, from the outset of a white collar crime investigation, to base any strategy on a realistic assessment of your potential criminal exposure after consulting with an experienced federal crime defense lawyer.

I put it to you that while Trump is NOT currently a 'Target', he most surely is a 'Subject of an Investigation', and he may well become a 'Target' any day now. Or they may actually have enough evidence to consider him a 'Target' but are keeping their powder dry until they know they have a knock-out punch (I know: mixed metaphors, meh).

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Seriously if mueller has stated trump is not under criminal investigation twice then how do you deal with the investigation if you are him and actually understand that potus is head over all criminal investigations unless he is the target of a criminal investigation.

If he is not under criminal investigation, if he is innocent, why is he so reactionary?

If he is not under criminal investigation, if he is innocent, then how to deal with it? Ignore it, because he is not personally under investigation, right?

If he is not under criminal investigation, if he is innocent, he has nothing to worry about, right?

Facts not feelings

originally posted by: rnaa
Here is something else to chew on. Everybody that is hanging their hats on the idea that Mueller has said that Trump is 'not a Target at this time' really, I mean REALLY, should make an effort to understand what he is saying (and not saying).

SOURCE: Duffy Law:
What’s The Difference Between a Federal Target, Subject, and Witness?

A federal criminal investigation is a virtual danger zone for the unwary. Even if you believe you’ve done nothing improper, you should never assume that the government sees the situation the same way. And if you are worried that you did something wrong, it is unwise to think that you can finesse the situation or explain away the problem on your own.

All individuals coming into the orbit of the federal prosecutor and grand jury fall into one of three categories: witness, subject or target. It is crucial to understand your status in a federal investigation to make the right decisions.

• Witness: Being a witness in a case involving the FBI, Secret Service, IRS or other Federal Agency does not necessarily mean that you observed or saw a crime happen. You may have information that law enforcement believes might be relevant in a criminal investigation to help prove either the guilt or the innocence of another individual or business. Although you may only be a witness, it’s critical to recognize that if you speak to Federal law enforcement your words are not protected without a proffer agreement and should you make a misrepresentation, you can be charged with the crimes of Lying to a Federal Agent[1] and Obstruction of Justice, each of which is punishable by as much as five years in a Federal penitentiary

• Subject of an Investigation: The term “subject of an investigation” has a particular meaning within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). According to the DOJ Handbook[2], a “subject” is: “a person whose conduct is within the scope of a Grand Jury’s investigation.” A subject is somewhere between a target and a witness. [B]A subject has engaged in conduct that may look suspicious or unethical, but the prosecutor isn’t certain that a provable crime has been committed and wants to do more investigating in order to be sure.[/B]

• Target: The term “target of an investigation” is also specifically defined by the DOJ. [B]A person is a target where the prosecutor or Grand Jury has substantial evidence linking him to the commission of a crime. Designation as a target provides a clear warning of a person’s criminal exposure.

Even though your status as a witness, subject or target may be important in guiding your strategy during a particular phase of a federal white collar crime investigation, the key thing to remember about these categories is that they are ultimately meaningless and offer you no protection. Why? Because even if you’re currently a witness or subject, there’s no guarantee that your status will remain unchanged. It is necessary, therefore, from the outset of a white collar crime investigation, to base any strategy on a realistic assessment of your potential criminal exposure after consulting with an experienced federal crime defense lawyer.

I put it to you that while Trump is NOT currently a 'Target', he most surely is a 'Subject of an Investigation', and he may well become a 'Target' any day now. Or they may actually have enough evidence to consider him a 'Target' but are keeping their powder dry until they know they have a knock-out punch (I know: mixed metaphors, meh).

Mueller can say whatever he wants but he has to adhere to the protocols of the justice department.

Trump can not be the target of an investigation without a special council being appointed with a specific crime to investigate. He is not a target of any legal investigation. There are no open ended investigations when it comes to the top law dog in the usa..

do you people understand what commander in chief means?

a reply to: Liquesence

I know Boo. It's very unpatriotic. I grow weary of buzz words, but one must admit the best way to describe is not only cognitive dissonance, but patriotism dissonance.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Trump can not be the target of an investigation without a special council being appointed with a specific crime to investigate.

Asked and already answered: this has already been litigated, and Mueller is within the bounds of his brief.

He is not a target of any legal investigation.

Asked and already answered: Trump is, by DOJ definition, at very minimum a 'witness'. He is almost certainly a 'subject of investigation'. I suspect we won't know for certain whether he is classified as a 'Target' or not until Mueller's report comes out.

There are no open ended investigations when it comes to the top law dog in the usa..

Yeah, right. Tell that to Kenneth Starr. Assigned to investigate Whitewater, he couldn't find ANYTHING, so went through every conspiracy theory under the sun and STILL couldn't find anything.

Ken Starr investigation: first 6 months: $60 million (adjusted for inflation) - after three years: $110 million; ZERO indictments; 1 failed impeachment (Source)

Mueller so far: first 6 months $4.7 million; Indictments: SIX Americans, THIRTEEN Russians.; Impeachments: too early to tell.

Mueller is not on an 'open ended' witch hunt that is going nowhere, he was appointed legally, has a legal defined scope, and is conducting his investigation 100% within the legal bounds of both DOJ protocols and his brief. He is investigating real crimes, getting real results, and doing it at 'bargain' rates (measured by a cost per indictment).

originally posted by: rnaa
Asked and already answered: this has already been litigated, and Mueller is within the bounds of his brief.

and again it was one judges ruling on the motion before her court. Judge Ellis has not ruled eyt nor has the SC report come out yet.

originally posted by: rnaa
Asked and already answered: Trump is, by DOJ definition, at very minimum a 'witness'. He is almost certainly a 'subject of investigation'. I suspect we won't know for certain whether he is classified as a 'Target' or not until Mueller's report comes out.

Yeah witnesses cant be investigated for criminal action unless they broke a law somewhere. At which point the are the subject / target / whatever word you want. The reason they keep playing word games with Trumps status is because the entire existence of the SC is predicated on Trump Russia collusion. Once Trump is cleared the investigation ends since its accomplished its mandate.

originally posted by: rnaa
Yeah, right. Tell that to Kenneth Starr. Assigned to investigate Whitewater, he couldn't find ANYTHING, so went through every conspiracy theory under the sun and STILL couldn't find anything.

Actually he is right. In Ken starrs case Clinton did in fact commit a crime by lying under oath. Since his investigation ended it was not open ended.

Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. In the course of the investigation, Linda Tripp provided Starr with taped phone conversations in which Monica Lewinsky, a former White House Intern, discussed having oral sex with Clinton. At the deposition, the judge ordered a precise legal definition of the term "sexual relations"[1] that Clinton claims to have construed to mean only vaginal intercourse. A much-quoted statement from Clinton's grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word "is." Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement".[2]

In case you are missing it crimes were actually listed for investigation that exist in the federal body of law. Secondly Ken Starr's IC was under the old Congressional law and not the latest DOJ guidelines. Guideline that Rosenstein and Mueller et al have already violated several times.

Tell us specifically what law Trump has violated and the evidence to support the investigation into him.

originally posted by: rnaa
Ken Starr investigation: first 6 months: $60 million (adjusted for inflation) - after three years: $110 million; ZERO indictments; 1 failed impeachment (Source)

Mueller so far: first 6 months $4.7 million; Indictments: SIX Americans, THIRTEEN Russians.; Impeachments: too early to tell.

Mueller is not on an 'open ended' witch hunt that is going nowhere, he was appointed legally, has a legal defined scope, and is conducting his investigation 100% within the legal bounds of both DOJ protocols and his brief. He is investigating real crimes, getting real results, and doing it at 'bargain' rates (measured by a cost per indictment).

Every single person indicted or who have plead guilty so far have nothing to do with Trump or Trump Russia collusion.

Everyone Mueller Has Charged in Russia Election Probe, All 22 of Them
* - Michael Flynn - False statements - currently under review by the federal judge. FBI cleared Flynn and currently the 302's submitted are under investigation for changes made at the insistence of McCabe and Sally Yates (acting AG at the time). Comey also got caught lying because he testified to Congress agents said Flynn was not lying to them. Talking to Russians during the transition is not illegal and had nothing to do with TRump Russia colusion.
* - Richard Pinedo - Identity Fraud
* - Alex van der Zwaan - lying to federal agents about a conversation with Gates regarding Ukraine.
* - Paul Manafort - lying to federal agents / financial crimes / FAR violation all from 2005. Currently Judge Ellis is reviewing the motion that the SC is acting outside of its jurisdiction. The SC got caught misleading the court by making claims that Rosenstein noted in a secret memo that expanded the SC jurisdiction to section B. When they were ordered to produce the unredacted memo they changed their story and said the authorization by Rosenstein was a verbal order.
* - Thirteen Russians and Three Russian entities - 2014 posed as US citizens to run political ads (BEFORE Trump was the nominee). Determined to havr no impact on the election or outcome and unrelated to Trump / Trump campaign.
* - Rick Gates - Lying to federal agents and conspiracy (financial crimes with Manafort from 2005).
* - George Papadopoulos - lying to federal agents

None of which have anything to do with Trump Russia collusion or any Trump involvement.

Finally, and pay attention -
You CANNOT investigate a person in order to find a crime. You MUST have a crime to legally investigate a person.

See the difference?

Just to clear something up regarding Nixon since some have mentioned his situation as comparable to whats going on now.

Nixons legal argument revolved solely around invoking Executive Privilege to resist subpoenas. Executive Privilege is not in the Constitution allowing the courts to lawfully be involved.

In Trumps case his pardon authority is a specific power in the Constitution. Because of that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled the courts have no authority to involve themselves in a specified constitution authority reserved to the President.

This ruling applies to any action the President takes that is part of his constitutional duty.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Finally, and pay attention - You CANNOT investigate a person in order to find a crime. You MUST have a crime to legally investigate a person.

Wrong. You need a legitimate cause giving rise to suspicion. Suspicious activity is not necessarily a crime, but you don't know unless you investigate that suspicious activity. In the process of determining if a crime was committed, you clearly need to investigate who was involved in that activity and what roles they played. And sometimes in that investigation you turn up other stuff that has been hidden.

(Side bar)
Starr did not find ANYTHING by ANYBODY that was indictable and Whitewater was a complicated financial transaction. How clean does something have to be that they can't find ANYTHING AT ALL by ANYBODY AT ALL. Nobody with past indiscretions that they can 'flip' on the way through. How could Clinton get where he was without getting involved with anybody that had dirt on him? (Yet Mueller has people flipping sides almost immediately). Starr had to go completely outside his mandate to manufacture something, anything, to justify his virtual theft of more than $100 million dollars from the American taxpayer. Starr was charged for ethics violations for doing that (going outside his mandate) by the way.

His actual charges against Clinton, including that he lied under oath, have been demonstrated false (he never denied the relationship UNDER OATH, never). He did not obstruct justice either. But that is all legal system stuff and it was not tested in court, he wasn't charged in the legal system, he was impeached in the political system, and found the case for "high crimes and misdemeanors" was found not proved.
(end Side Bar)

As for suspicious activity:

==> Trump: "Russians and Fugitive Australians (Wikileaks) should absolutely interfere in the U.S. Elections" : possible violation of US election law - investigation warranted.

==> Trump Jr. and others: "I took a meeting with Russian agents because they had dirt on Hillary": possible violation of US Election law - investigation warranted.

==> Trump and the Russians: possible conspiracy to violate U.S. Election law (i.e. 'collusion') : investigation warranted.

==> Trump: "I fired Comey because of the 'Russian Thing" : possible obstruction of justice - investigation warranted.

==> Trump Jr. and others to Congress: "The meeting was about child adoption": possible perjury - investigation warranted.

==> Trump Jr. and others: "The meeting was not really about adoption, it was about Obama imposed Sanctions" - possible Federal Law violation - investigation warranted. (Note: Russia stopped Americans adopting Russian orphans because of Obama era sanctions on the Russian mafia's ability to move and launder money).

==> Trump Jr. to Congress: "Dad didn't write that memo; (months later, and three story changes later) he essentially wrote it and told me to what to say to Congress": possible perjury - investigation warranted.

==> Trump: probably knew about all of the above : possible election law violation, possible suborning perjury - investigation warranted.

==> Trump: receiving emoluments (bribes) via Hotels: possible Constitutional violation - investigation warranted.

==> Trump and Wife: taking straight up bribes in exchange for favorable treatment in issues related to China - investigation warranted.


Look, this list goes on and on and on and on and I'm tired of listing them. There is more than enough to warrant an investigation, and you are being purposely deceitful when you pretend there is not.

Edit: the list above was supposed to be a numbered list, but it didn't work. I don't know why.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Just to clear something up regarding Nixon since some have mentioned his situation as comparable to whats going on now.

Nixons legal argument revolved solely around invoking Executive Privilege to resist subpoenas. Executive Privilege is not in the Constitution allowing the courts to lawfully be involved.

In Trumps case his pardon authority is a specific power in the Constitution. Because of that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled the courts have no authority to involve themselves in a specified constitution authority reserved to the President.

This ruling applies to any action the President takes that is part of his constitutional duty.

Your post does nothing at all to 'clear something up'.

Nixon was told that he could not pardon himself by his legal counsel - both personal and in the DOJ because of the basic principle that ‘no one may be a judge in his own case, the president cannot pardon himself’. It was never tested in court and the issue has nothing to do with the Executive Privilege and subpoenas. Nixon resigned 3 days after receiving that advice.

In addition, were Trump to offer himself a pardon, and then accept it, he would be ADMITTING GUILT in whatever crimes he was pardoning. That is a fundamental, inescapable, principle of a pardon. By the way, some of those crimes would be both State and Federal crimes, and his pardon would only apply to the Federal crimes.

Furthermore, that pardon only has effect in the legal system. It has nothing to do with the political system. Impeachment is a political process - a pardon does not make him immune from impeachment. However, since accepting a pardon is, on its face, admitting guilt to a crime, it is also irrevocably admitting to an impeachable "high crime and misdemeanor".

So while he might get away with a pardon and leave people arguing about it for years (and probably putting up an amendment to forbid it), he still wouldn't survive in office. He'd actually be much better off doing a Nixon and then get Pence to pardon him.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What do you think this latest news about Manafort will do to Judge Ellis' decision?

a reply to: Xcathdra

He cannot be the judge in his own case. That would put him above the law.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: howtonhawky

Trump can not be the target of an investigation without a special council being appointed with a specific crime to investigate.

Asked and already answered: this has already been litigated, and Mueller is within the bounds of his brief.

He is not a target of any legal investigation.

Asked and already answered: Trump is, by DOJ definition, at very minimum a 'witness'. He is almost certainly a 'subject of investigation'. I suspect we won't know for certain whether he is classified as a 'Target' or not until Mueller's report comes out.

There are no open ended investigations when it comes to the top law dog in the usa..

Yeah, right. Tell that to Kenneth Starr. Assigned to investigate Whitewater, he couldn't find ANYTHING, so went through every conspiracy theory under the sun and STILL couldn't find anything.

Ken Starr investigation: first 6 months: $60 million (adjusted for inflation) - after three years: $110 million; ZERO indictments; 1 failed impeachment (Source)

Mueller so far: first 6 months $4.7 million; Indictments: SIX Americans, THIRTEEN Russians.; Impeachments: too early to tell.

Mueller is not on an 'open ended' witch hunt that is going nowhere, he was appointed legally, has a legal defined scope, and is conducting his investigation 100% within the legal bounds of both DOJ protocols and his brief. He is investigating real crimes, getting real results, and doing it at 'bargain' rates (measured by a cost per indictment).

i am speaking in terms of what the constitution says about such.

i get that much has been done in the past that was unconstitutional

muellers appointment violates the appointment clause because of what you say about the scope givin to the appointment. the scope is outside the bounds of the constitution and renders any future actions null and void over time

a reply to: rnaa

Wrong

you are full of opinions here

the only way for muellers appointment to be constitutional would be if a crime was cited in the appointment.

there were zero crimes cited in the scope zero criminal codes

that means mueller is only legally able to do counter intel and he has to state the president is not a target of a criminal investigation.

if mueller would not have said that then he would have already been removed legally

remember the info in msm is way behind and only givin to fit a narrative

facts not feelings

a reply to: rnaa

My 15+ years in law enforcement in 2 different states tell me I am right.

Thanks for playing though.

a reply to: rnaa

It is suppose to help people who dont bother to understand the rulings of the court and the underlying issues involved for their decisions and how its applied.

If people are so lazy ass stupid they refuse to understand the cases then they should not try and cite a case that doesnt support their argument only to scream when the are called out.