Not much of an open question. Two DOJ memos state that a President can't be.
The DOJ regulations require a special counsel to follow the rules, regulations and policies of the department.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
The DOJ regulations require a special counsel to follow the rules, regulations and policies of the department.
They are running out of time. For the democrats dream, they have to sweep in November and then hope they can spin something that Mueller puts out there for a possible impeachment hearing. Could affect a second term, but just about out of time on this one.
Almost two years up and still nothing. Which currently means, they got nothing.
Almost two years up and still nothing. Which currently means, they got nothing.
How never dies. If it does
The Watergate timeline shows it took just 6 weeks to tie a check from Nixon's campaign to the burglars, and another stunningly short 6 weeks for the FBI to conclude the burglary was part of a much broader spying effort by the Nixon campaign.
Trump's Russiagate investigation, after two years, has produced little other than showing collusion between the Clinton campaign, Russia, and Obama's DOJ, FBI and Intelligence arm. Oh, and a criminal trial involving a 2005 tax fraud case unrelated to anything.
People see right through spin. Politicians in particular see through it, so even if the Dems sweep November, Trump himself will have to do something significant enough to get not only a majority of Senate Republicans against him, but a significant majority of the American people. And it'll need to be something we haven't yet heard about.
That Watergate time-line shows something over a 2 year period, unlike the Russiagate twimeline that shows nothing other than allegations full of wants and wishes.
The Watergate timeline shows it took just 6 weeks to tie a check from Nixon's campaign to the burglars, and another stunningly short 6 weeks for the FBI to conclude the burglary was part of a much broader spying effort by the Nixon campaign.
Trump's Russiagate investigation, after two years, has produced little other than showing collusion between the Clinton campaign, Russia, and Obama's DOJ, FBI and Intelligence arm. Oh, and a criminal trial involving a 2005 tax fraud case unrelated to anything.
Which is why I expect a report to go to Congress. That said, memos are just that, memos. They can be easily changed if DOJ so decides. If that developed, the indictment question would become immediately relevant. If an indictment was sought, the question would be taken up in the courts.
Correct
Hmm. Interesting. So they could change a 35 year old policy of the DOJ that a sitting President can't be indicted. It's just a memo. How convenient to change the rules in the middle of the game to go after Trump.
They could. It would ultimately be up to the Attorney General (Sessions), so it's unlikely. The legal reasoning behind not indicting a sitting President is laid out meticulously, with the primary factor being that the Constitution already prescribes the governing body (Congress) and method (impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate) to deal with a president accused of indictable offenses. Otherwise a defiant and angry DOJ could bury the president in indictments and bring the Executive branch to a halt.
There are foir separate Justice memos on the subject. Three are “no indictment” opinions, and one “yes indictment” opinion. The three “no indictment” opinions were issued by executive-branch lawyers, while the lone “yes” opinion came out of the Starr probe, which doggedly pursued Clinton and finally got him impeached.
There is no definitive case law on it, but various Supreme Court justices over the years have made comments about it here and there.
The debates during the framing and ratification of the Constitution suggest that the president is of course subject to laws like any citizen, but never discuss prosecution while in office. During the trials of Aaron Burr, Chief Justice John Marshall had insisted that Thomas Jefferson was subject to subpoena, but also that as president he could refuse to attend court in person, and could withhold some evidence.
Justice Marshall noted, and Justice Department lawyers have agreed since then, that an indictment of a president while in office would besmirch the “symbolic head of the nation.” In addition, “only the president can receive and continuously discharge the popular mandate expressed quadrennially in the presidential election,” making an indictment or trial “politically and constitutionally a traumatic event.” Impeachment is the first line of defense against presidential misconduct, one memo author noted. “This would suggest strongly that … criminal proceedings against a President in office should not go beyond a point” that they would effectively remove a president, and thus become a short-cut for impeachment.
So the argument against indicting a sitting President is pretty sound, with "I don't like him and I want to indict him really, really bad" falling woefully short as a counter argument.
The chances of a sitting President being indicted are very, very slim. It's far easier to do it by the book and impeach him, remove him from office then throw the book at him if warranted. Otherwise, runaway indictment fever could be and would be abused to the point of shutting down the presidency, effectively removing him from office without removing him from office.
This is a weird development. According to this Politico report, some strong Trump supporters have adopted a line of reasoning in which they see impeachment proceedings against Trump as a good thing. Their idea is that Trump would prevail in an impeachment fight, emerge stronger than ever and win big in his 2020 reelection bid.
I'm little concerned about the validity of that reasoning one way or another. But as someone who has predicted Trump's impeachment, this development boosts my confidence that impeachment proceedings will begin. Earlier, these people would not have seen impeachment proceedings as a good thing. Now they do.
This thinking is not widespread in the Republican party but the fact that it has emerged at all is worthy of note.
I'm little concerned about the validity of that reasoning one way or another. But as someone who has predicted Trump's impeachment, this development boosts my confidence that impeachment proceedings will begin. Earlier, these people would not have seen impeachment proceedings as a good thing. Now they do.
This thinking is not widespread in the Republican party but the fact that it has emerged at all is worthy of note.
Party overreach is often a factor in politics. One party tries to do something on partisan grounds and then they end up losing support with a majority of the public.
Why isn't Mueller all up in those scandals? Like he's taking a blind eye to it.
Why do you see it as a joke? The current Manafort trial has nothing to do with Trump. It's about past crimes Manafort is charged with having committed. If a man commits tax and bank fraud crimes, and is charged and is fairly tried in a court of law, should that man not be sent to prison if the jury finds him guilty or set free of it finds him not guilty?
If you take the tip of your nose off the bark of that tree you will be able to see more of the forest. This trial has everything to do with Trump. If if didn't, then Rosenstein would have recommended prosecution of Manafort years ago when he was in charge of the FBI investigation into Manafort for the very crimes Manafort has been charged with. But Rosenstein recommended against prosecuting Manafort. As the judge in the trial suggested, this trial is more about a Trump impeachment than prosecuting Manafort for alleged crimes. From the early morning raid at Manafort's home to the laughably heavy-handed overcharging of Manafort, to holding him without bail, all point to someone being squeezed to coerce them into flipping, into singing, if not even composing.
Jury verdicts are often surprising, but I think Manafort has a far better chance of being found not guilty of all charges than he does of being found guilty of all charges. I'll be surprised if the jury finds Manafort guilty of more than 4 or 5 of the 18 charges.
Maybe some jail time. Restitution and fines. But over 300 years? The murderer in Scarsdale New York only received 20 years. I'm hoping for at least a hung jury for Manafort. Don't know much about him. But since many in the Fake News media are rooting for a guilty verdict so as to indirectly damage Trump, I'm hoping they end up with a scoop of ice cream from their cone on their lap.
I have not been following the trial as closely as you. Nor do I know much about Manafort beyond the occasional headline I see. One thing you did not mention is the evidence that seems to exist. It's also the case that Manafort has been represented by competent attorneys. The judge did not order him to jail on a whim. That question was argued by both sides and decided by the judge.
Unlike some, I still believe that the court is a legitimate and competent entity. I like it when a case of great public interest goes to court because more is required there than headline grabbing and political posturing. The rule of law still matters in court. And if a corrupt judge or jury or prosecutor or defense attorney is found, remedies exist to address those.
Having served on a jury, I know better than to try to predict what they will decide. The case has been made. The defense had its say. All we can do at this point is wait to see what the jury concludes. They have been sitting in the courtroom for weeks listening to every word. The last thing I am going to do is suggest what they should decide based on what I hear via the press.
When I served on a jury, we based our decision mostly on something we saw in the evidence that was never mentioned by either side. Had those proceedings been covered by the press, no mention of that item would have been reported on TV or in print.Yet that item was major point on which our decision was made.
We have no idea how the jurors will interpret what they saw and heard in the courtroom. And we don't know how much of what actually happened in the courtroom was actually reported by the press. I'm content to wait to hear what the jury decides.
My personal view of Manafort is negative. That's because the guy made a living representing shady political figures. But I'm not going to prejudge him relative to the specific charges that he faces in this court case. I don't have to. He is innocent until proven guilty and a jury is considering the case now.
Last edited: