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

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Point out in the Constitution where it says he cant. 

How bout you point out where it says he can.

Article 2 section 2 of the US Constitution

Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

When and by whom was Nixon told he cant pardon himself?



Other info you ignored -

* - Supreme Court rules for president in separation of powers case - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a board overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission operated under rules that violated the Constitution's separation of powers clause.

* - Myers v. United States

3. The President is empowered by the Constitution to remove any executive officer appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and this power is not subject in its exercise to the assent of the Senate, nor can it be made so by an act of Congress. Pp. 119, 125.

4. The provision of Art. II, § 1, of the Constitution that "the Executive power shall be vested in a President" is a grant of the power, and not merely a naming of a department of the government. Pp. 151, 163.

5. The provisions of Art. II, § 2, which blend action by the legislative branch, or by part of it, in the work of the Executive, are limitations upon this general grant of the Executive power which are to be strictly construed, and not to be extended by implication. P. 164.

6. It is a canon of interpretation that real effect should be given to all the words of the Constitution. P. 151.

7. Removal of executive officials from office is an executive function; the power to remove, like the power to appoint, is part of "the Executive power," -- a conclusion which is confirmed by the obligation "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Pp. 161, 164.

8. The power of removal is an incident of the power to appoint; but such incident does not extend the Senate's power of checking appointments, to removals. Pp. 119, 121, 126, 161.

9. The excepting clause in § 2 of Art. II, providing

but Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers.

* - The Pocket Veto Case

(No. 565)

The power thus conferred upon the President cannot be narrowed or cut down by Congress, nor the time within which it is to be exercised lessened, directly or indirectly. P. 677.

* -

Judicial Review of Impeachments

SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Annotations

It was long assumed that no judicial review of the impeachment process was possible, that impeachment presents a true “political question” case, i. e. , that the Constitution’s conferral on the Senate of the “sole” power to try impeachments is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of trial procedures to the Senate to decide without court review. That assumption was not contested until very recently, when Judges Nixon and Hastings challenged their Senate convictions.907

In the Judge Nixon case, the Court held that a claim to judicial review of an issue arising in an impeachment trial in the Senate presents a nonjusticiable “political question.”908 Specifically, the Court rejected a claim that the Senate had departed from the meaning of the word “try” in the impeachment clause by relying on a special committee to take evidence, including testimony. But the Court’s “political question” analysis has broader application, and appears to place the whole impeachment process off limits to judicial review.909

* -

United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 150 (1833), was a case in the United States in which the defendant, George Wilson, was convicted of robbing the US Mail in Pennsylvania and sentenced to death.[1] Due to his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by Andrew Jackson. Wilson, however, refused the pardon. The Supreme Court was thus asked to rule on the case.[1]

The decision was that if the prisoner does not accept the pardon, it is not in effect: "A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it is rejected, we have discovered no power in this court to force it upon him."

he Pardoning Power

The power to pardon comes from Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the president "Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States." While the Supreme Court has interpreted the power broadly -- "It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment" -- it is limited to those offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the pardoning official. Therefore, Mr. Obama has the authority to issue pardons for federal crimes.

There are no statutory or judicial limits on the number of pardons or commutations a president can grant.

The purpose of the above information was to demonstrate the courts position on Constitutional authority specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

Mississippi vs. Johnson also spelled it out when it comes to the courts lack of authority / jurisdiction when its a clear power assigned in the Constitution to one particular branch of government.

Federal judges who have been impeached have tried to challenge their impeachments in courts and they have been thrown out with the courts saying impeachment is a clear power to the House / Senate and courts have no jurisdiction.

It would be an injury to separation of powers.

edit on 7-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Point out in the Constitution where it says he cant. 

How bout you point out where it says he can.

Article 2 section 2 of the US Constitution

Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

This is the legal version of course.

The Democrat version substitutes the word "Impeachment" with the word "Trump" (per revision law %dnc%.`dnc)

💥

The founders set it up very smartly.

All these things that the potus can do including pardon himself and anyone for federal crimes and firing whom he chooses federally except a special prosecutor with a specific criminal mandate... all these things are inconsequncial to the fact the potus can only have his power removed by a congressional vote.

It is a popularity contest and the only factors that truly matter are keeping poll numbers up

If he continues to do a good job the only thing that could sway the public is actual crimes proven and not this wishing criminality.

At this point any real crimes would likely end up in scotus battle since the special councils mandate was formed unconstitutionally

that's what it all boils down to.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The purpose of the above information was to demonstrate the courts position on Constitutional authority specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

All good interesting info. Thank you for taking the time.

Of course, not one word applies to the discussion at hand about whether or not a President can pardon himself or not.

a reply to: Xcathdra

A traffic stop requires reasonable suspicion a crime has occurred

Yes the key words are 'reasonable suspicion'. Without "reasonable suspicion" the investigation cannot take place.

"Reasonable suspicion" is not proof of a crime - it is the investigation that determines if there is a crime or not.

For example: Border Patrol agents can stop people on the street if they notice that they are wearing several layers of clothing (reasonable suspicion that they have illegally crossed the border with several sets of clothes on their back for simplicity). But that person may just be a natural born citizen who is cold or homeless.

Contrary to what your assertion says, a cop does NOT need to see a crime take place to form 'reasonable suspicion - he can stop a car because the license plate is loose for example, or because it was backing out of the driveway of a known drug dealer.

"reasonable suspicion" takes on many forms and the DOJ has lots of 'reasonable suspicion' to warrant investigation.

And like you say, this case is not as simple as a traffic violation.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Xcathdra

The purpose of the above information was to demonstrate the courts position on Constitutional authority specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

All good interesting info. Thank you for taking the time.

Of course, not one word applies to the discussion at hand about whether or not a President can pardon himself or not.

Maybe if you understood what you were reading it would make more sense. Let me help.

All the cases cited deal with separation of powers. They deal with challenges to actions taken by one branch with those actions being specified in the Constitution and belonging to one specific branch of government. The rulings are against the challenges and the court is citing the fact the powers are specifically granted to one branch and the other branches have absolutely no authority getting involved because of it.

Political Question doctrine -

In Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. (1918), which is one of the earliest examples of the Supreme Court applying the political question doctrine, the Court found that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch. As such, the Court found that cases which challenge the way in which the Executive uses that power present political questions. Thus, the Court held that it cannot preside over these issues.

The Court broadened this ruling in Baker v Carr (1962), when it held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch and/or the Legislative Branch.

The Court in Nixon v. United States (1993) also extended this doctrine to which lawsuits which challenge the Legislative Branch's procedure for impeachment proceedings.

Further, the Supreme Court has chosen to apply the doctrine in more cases related to the Executive Branch than in cases related to the Legislative Branch.

Pardon is a specified power to the executive, namely the President. There are no restrictions placed on the power, including self pardons.

It becomes classified as a political question.



You up to speed now?

a reply to: rnaa

Reasonable suspicion for traffic stops is not the same for a criminal investigation dealing with non traffic offense.

Reasonable suspicion in those circumstances (non traffic) still requires articulable facts that are specific to the crime in question. In these cases something more than inchoate is required. Starting an criminal investigation based on a feeling that a law was violated is not allowed. You must have something more to go on to reach the legal threshold for the investigation to be valid and hold up in court.

You cannot investigate a person in search of a crime. you MUST have a crime to start an investigation. In the case of Trump the FBI circumvented the legal requirements by using a counter intelligence investigation. A counter intelligence and criminal investigation are NOT the same thing. A counter intelligence operation has lesser standards / thresholds to meet in order to obtain warrants for searches / wiretapping etc.

Once one of those investigations snags a US citizen then they are required to comply with all requirements of a standard criminal investigation with one major exception. In order to obtain warrants under FISA on a US citizen the agency submitting the FISA warrant MUST comply with the woods protocol. This was put in place specifically because the FBI was just making sh*t on their warrant applications to obtain the warrant. Thee FBI/DOJ were taken to task hardcore over that crap and the woods protocol was the result.

Every single piece of evidence submitted to obtain a FISA warrant against a US citizen MUST be fully verified before it can be used. The FBI/DOJ failed spectacularly in this area to start this illegal investigation into Trump. Yes, because they failed to comply with the requirements to obtain the FISA warrants the investigation is illegal and any and all evidence collected is tainted. All indictments are questionable / challenged and any convictions are subject to appeal on civil rights violation / due process violation grounds.

Never mind the fact a fraud on the court was committed by failing to disclose all evidence in the warrants, namely where the dossier came from.

So no - Traffic stops and criminal investigations are not the same. The standards are different and the threshold for a criminal investigation are higher than pulling a car over for speeding.


Finally there is no crime in the US body of law (criminal) called collusion. The special counsel law REQUIRES a specific crime be listed to legally meet the threshold to be valid. That crime MUST be listed in the authorizing document. Given that Rosenstein failed to list ANY crime the SC is unlawful.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You cannot investigate a person in search of a crime. you MUST have a crime to start an investigation.

That is simply NOT accurate.

You need a 'reasonable suspicion' that a crime may have been committed to launch an investigation. This is exactly what Grand Juries do ALL THE TIME.

(Source)

Generally speaking, a grand jury may issue an indictment for a crime, also known as a "true bill," only if it finds, based upon the evidence that has been presented to it, that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by a criminal suspect...

United States law also provides for the formation of special grand juries. While a regular grand jury primarily decides whether to bring charges, a special grand jury is called into existence to investigate whether organized crime is occurring in the community in which it sits. This could include, for instance, organized drug activity or organized corruption in government.

A grand jury has to decide whether a crime has taken place, and if so if there is enough evidence to charge someone.

I will reword that for emphasis: one of the two major functions of a Grand Jury IS TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS A CRIME COMMITTED. The Grand Jury is empaneled IF THERE IS A REASONABLE SUSPICION of a crime. If there is no doubt that a crime has been committed, then there is no real need for a Grand Jury.

Mueller and his Grand Jury are investigating whether or not a crime (or crimes) have been committed. Some crimes have been discovered, and it has been determined that there is 'probable cause' to charge several people with those crimes. The investigation continues; we don't know for sure what further crimes Mueller has documented, or who he has in his sights for the responsibility for any such crimes.

What we do know is that YOU ARE WRONG about how Grand Jury investigations work and your 15+ years of law enforcement experience doesn't do you any good at all in that arena. Perhaps you could use a different lesson from that experience and do some investigation to get 'just the facts' before you try to play the "subject matter expert" card.

a reply to: rnaa

na
you gotta have valid evidence and follow the proper procedures
you can not investigate without specific crimes and valid evidence.
this is not a traffic stop

a reply to: rnaa

I am not sure what your malfunction is but you must have a crime to investigate a person. You CANNOT investigate a person in search of a crime. Are you being deliberately obtuse or what? You are the one who tried telling everyone you can investigate without a crime. You then argued against for telling you you have to have crime to investigate a person while you tried to argue you could investigate a person in search of a crime.

You cannot empanel a grand jury solely to drag a person in front of it and fish for a crime. The purpose of a Grand Jury is to evaluate if there is enough evidence to indict the target for a law violation. They do NOT determine the validity of evidence presented nor do they determine guilt or innocence. Further an indictment by a GJ does not mean the prosecutor has to follow thru on the indictment and prosecute. There is no defense counsel present and the prosecutor runs a GJ. They determine what the GJ hears and does not hear. GJ dont require unanimous approval to issue an indictment. After al of that one of the first hearings if a person is indicted and a prosecutor follows thru is to appear before a judge for a guilty or not guilty plea and a determination if there is in fact enough evidence to sustain the charge.

Finally I see you have once again moved to another topic after being proven wrong in your previous arguments. You are the only person who brought up a grand jury. The SC investigation is not lawful.

What else can I prove you wrong on and what are you going to jump to next that no one asked about solely so you can provide more false information that we then have to correct.

So yes I will take my 15+ years of law enforcement over your false and misleading ferret on crack approach to these topics.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am not sure what your malfunction is but you must have a crime to investigate a person. You CANNOT investigate a person in search of a crime. Are you being deliberately obtuse or what?

Me 'being deliberately obtuse'? Are you being deliberately disingenuous or what?

What don't you understand about 'reasonable suspicion'? What don't you understand about the purpose of Grand Juries?

GRAND JURIES DO NOT NECESSARILY KNOW THAT A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED WHEN THEY START THEIR INVESTIGATION.

They investigate 'suspicious activity', and if it is determined to be a crime, they decide if there is enough evidence to charge someone for that crime. This is called bringing a 'true bill' or 'returning an indictment'.

The prosecutor has evidence of suspicious activity and he brings it to the Grand Jury. They investigate that activity, which may or may not be a crime. In the process of determining whether or not it is indeed a crime, they need to talk to witnesses - that is called an investigation, interviewing witnesses, studying documents, etc. MAYBE there is a crime and MAYBE NOT. I understand that a Grand Jury is seldom called when there isn't a really good case that a crime has been committed (because prosecutors hate to be embarrassed, of course), and therefore most Grand Jury investigations do actually lead to indictments, but it is not necessarily in every case. And they don't necessarily know what crime or who is involved - that is exactly why they investigate.

A witness may or may not become a 'subject' and a 'subject' may or may not become a 'target' if evidence of a crime is actually found. The Department of Justice has specific definitions about the use of the words 'witness', 'subject of investigation' and 'target' when they discuss cases, (to the extent that they discuss cases in public, of course). Trump has been told he is not 'currently' a 'target'. That does NOT mean that he will not become a 'target' in the future.

You are right it is not a traffic stop, but the principle is the same even if it is writ small. A cop DOES NOT need to personally witness an actual crime to stop a vehicle and investigate. A cop needs 'reasonable suspicion'. And it is relatively easy to, not manufacture, but at least find nit picky things to make it possible, like a cracked taillight or something. And in the course of that investigation it might be that a crime is actually found (expired license, possession, DUI, whatever).

What is hard to understand about that? It is not rocket science.

I understand that in your supposed 15+ years of law enforcement expertise, YOU may have never had anything to do with Grand Juries, but if that 15+ years of experience was not from watching endless reruns of 1960's cop shows in your mom's basement, then you have been alive long enough to have absorbed some kind of understanding that Mueller is not investigating a liquor shop robbery or a purse snatching, and the Grand Jury investigation is not the same as a beat cop's investigation.

We don't know what Mueller has found out yet, but to seriously pretend that his investigation is illegitimate is superbly ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and just plain wrong.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Finally I see you have once again moved to another topic after being proven wrong in your previous arguments. You are the only person who brought up a grand jury. The SC investigation is not lawful.

Careful. Your ignorance is showing. There is no 'move to another topic'. The Mueller investigation IS a Grand Jury investigation. Mueller doesn't issue subpoena's - the Grand Jury does. Mueller doesn't put witnesses under oath in his private offices, he goes to the Grand Jury for that. Mueller doesn't want an off the record interview with Trump, he wants to be under oath in front of the Grand Jury.

Do you think he is just winging it all on his lonesome? I thought you had 15+ years of law enforcement experience and you are trying to play that card as if it gives you some sort of subject matter expertise. Yet you don't have the life experience to know the first thing about how the U.S. legal system works. Google and Wikipedia are your friends.

Here is a little info about that for your reference. Please do some research before you make yourself look even more foolish than you already do.

5 facts about Mueller’s grand jury (from March 2018)

Trump Can Fire Mueller, But Not a Grand Jury (from February 2018)

Grand juries, explained for those who kinda sorta know what they are

a reply to: rnaa

and once again you cannot investigate a person in order to find a crime they committed. There must be a potential law violation to begin an inves5tigation. What we have with the special counsel is an investigation into Trump-Rusia collusion. There is no such crime as collusion in the federals body of law (criminal). No other potential crimes were listed means the SC was unlawfully constituted.

As for your comment on what a cop needs to stop a vehicle. Reasonable suspicion requires an articulable fact. A cop MUST have a valid lawful reason IE potential law violation to initiate a traffic stop. A cop cannot just stop a car with no cause in an effort to investigate the driver in order to find a crime.

Aside from the latest supreme court ruling on 3rd party reporting you are absolutely wrong that an officer does not have to witness a crime in order to stop the vehicle. A law violation is required to stop the vehicle. That stop is based on reasonable suspicion at which point the officer conduct an investigation to either meet probable cause to make an arrest / issue a citation.

Please learn about the topic if you are going to try and argue/debate. Thus far you have been absolutely wrong on what you are claiming.

As for Mueller he has nothing on Trump and that's been obvious for the last 2 years. If as crime exists it would have been leaked by now considering everything else under the sun regarding this mess has already been leaked.

a reply to: rnaa

No the Mueller investigation is not a grand jury investigation. Mueller must investigate the potential law violation and develop articulable facts of a law violation coupled with evidence to support said charge. It is then he must empanel a grand jury where the evidence is presented along with the crimes the prosecutor is seeking indictments on. Grand jury's can issue a grand jury subpoena along with subpoenaing witnesses in addition to indictments.

The Grand jury hears the info and then decides if there is enough info to indict or return a no bill.

So far all you have done is be wrong about every topic you raised and should quit while your behind.

Again learn about the topic before making claims that are false.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The links I provided show that you are wrong.

SC Mueller is 'running' at least two Grand Juries in his work. Your refusal to acknowledge that simple fact is breathtakingly foul.

So that is it. This discussion is over because I am no longer willing to feed your trollish behaviour. If you can't engage in an honest discussion and acknowledge facts shown to belie your preconceived agenda, then it is pointless to continue.

You have provided no reason to believe that your opinions deserve any respect or consideration what so ever.

a reply to: rnaa

Translation - you cant defend the crazy you posted and are now leaving - check.

Next time try and stay with just one topic and dont bounce around like you did. Every time you got called out you attempted to move the goalposts on to another point. As an example no one brought up the grand jury but you. Mueller has to run 2 grand juries given a grand jury must be empaneled in the district where the crime itself is prosecutable. Once more a GJ has nothing to do with what was discussed by anyone but you.

Good luck.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rnaa

Translation - you cant defend the crazy you posted and are now leaving - check.

Next time try and stay with just one topic and dont bounce around like you did. Every time you got called out you attempted to move the goalposts on to another point. As an example no one brought up the grand jury but you. Mueller has to run 2 grand juries given a grand jury must be empaneled in the district where the crime itself is prosecutable. Once more a GJ has nothing to do with what was discussed by anyone but you.

Good luck.

Your argument here is just like sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la la la la la la la la'.

You repeatedly claimed that Mueller didn't have the authority to investigate Trump unless there was a specific crime. These are your exact words from a recent post:

and once again you cannot investigate a person in order to find a crime they committed. There must be a potential law violation to begin an inves5tigation.

Now, Mueller has said several times that he is not currently investigating Trump (i.e. Trump is not a target).

What Mueller IS investigating is the suspicious activity that he was assigned to investigate. He has that authority and he is doing it correctly. Yet you continue to bang on that Mueller has no authority to investigate.

I merely pointed out that he does have the authority and using the Grand Jury is the correct way to do it. So if that is moving the goalposts, fine, lets go back to your claim about 'there is no crime of collusion' then.

What is collusion, if it isn't a crime?
In economics:source

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal–but always secretive–to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage.

In academia: source

Collusion happens when more than one student contributes to a piece of work that is submitted as the work of an individual. Individual assessment work should be entirely the work of the student submitting that work.

Working together with other students on a piece of work that will be submitted for individual assessment is not permitted and can result in an accusation of academic misconduct for all the students involved.

...Collusion is different from group work where students are instructed by the university to work together and the work is then assessed as a group effort.

You are right in the respect, collusion is not in and of itself a crime. But for example "price fixing" is a crime and price fixing is "collusion to limit open competition.

'Collusion' is a generic term covering a wide range of illegal activities (and legal activities too don't forget!). Collusion is like 'conspiracy' but maybe not quite as pejorative. So investigating collusion between parties may well involve investigating any number of 'actual' crimes.

You seem to think that because we, you and I, don't specifically know what Mueller knows, what specific forms of collusion he is investigating, what specific crimes he is looking at, that there aren't any and he should just go away. Well one reason we don't know, is because Grand Jury proceedings are secret (and please remind Ken Starr of that, won't you?).

On the other hand we do know a fair bit about the form of SOME of that collusion is likely to take. We know that a meeting between Kushner, Trump Jr., and several other campaign officials with several intelligence operatives from Russia was sufficiently embarrassing that they had to lie to Congress about it, multiple times, and changed the story around it several times. It is absolutely clear that Kushner took that meeting for the sole purpose of getting political dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russians - because he said so. This is, on the face of it, a Federal Election Law violation (you cannot accept material benefits from foreigners). Again, on the face of it, this is collusion between the Campaign and the Russians to violate American law.

Of course, we also know that the Russians weren't really offering dirt on Hillary. What they wanted was for the sanctions that the Magnitski Act had put on Russian financial transactions to be lifted because they were directly affecting Putin and his top Cronies. The Russian had stopped Americans from adopting Russian orphans in 'retaliation' and they wanted to trade. Also, on the face of it collusion between the Campaign and the Russians to violate Election Law.

It is also, on the face of it, a violation of the Logan Act (a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States).

Of course, we also know that Trump is a 'witness' (maybe a 'subject of investigation', but probably not yet a 'target'), and if he does ever show up to to the Grand Jury to answer questions under oath (or even give a deposition), he will lie with every breath he takes, because that is simply what Trump does (and Mueller, unlike Starr, will be able to prove it, of course).

These are just two examples for your demand of 'there must be a crime to start an investigation'. We don't know what Mueller knows, but there is plenty of 'meat on them there bones'. Whether or not Mueller has enough evidence of these crimes (or other crimes we don't know so much about) to convince a Grand Jury to indict we don't know. Whether or not his report, indictments or not, document enough evidence to constitute impeachable 'high crimes and misdemeanors' we also do not know (actually, there is much more in the public domain than there ever was about Bill Clinton).

And to charge anyone for these crimes (and/or others), Mueller has to investigate if that was indeed a crime and convince the Grand Jury that it is, and he needs to convince the Grand Jury that there is enough evidence to actually charge someone for the crime.

I brought the Grand Jury into the discussion because you are attempting to propagandize that Mueller is a lone wolf, acting improperly, and without controls, and that just isn't the case. Mueller is in fact meticulously following the exact legal procedures that need to be followed. There are two Grand Juries, meaning two Judges that empaneled them, as you also keep pointing out (one judge has ruled on the Manafort's challenge to Mueller, the other has not yet so ruled).

I just remembered, YOU are the one that brought up that there were two Grand Jury empaneling Judges, and one had yet to rule pending more documentation. (Wait a moment while I go back and verify that it was you... yep, you. Though you didn't say the words "Grand Jury" you named the judge who empaneled that Grand Jury - which is why that judge is the one hearing the challenge).

The reason you don't want it known that Mueller is using the Grand Jury process, which is, of course the ONLY process he can use, is to imply that Mueller is acting improperly as a lone wolf and maintain a patina of unease about Mueller among less thoughtful readers.

That is a direct violation of the ATS motto "Deny Ignorance".

a reply to: rnaa

/yawn

I already provided all the info you need to get on the same page as the rest of us. All that's left is for you to read and understand it.

Deny ignorance...


Good advice that you should try.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.

Manafort Trial Is to Go Forward, but Judge Warns Mueller to Stay Within Authority

the judge said that “upon further review,” it was clear to him that the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, had “followed the money paid by pro-Russian officials” to Mr. Manafort — a line of inquiry that fell squarely in his authority.

OK? So NOW it has been litigated TWICE, and Manafort has lost TWICE. Does that mean that it has been 'litigated and settled' according to your definition of 'litigate' yet?