Mueller: President Trump Cannot Be Indicted

[Kutnupe14]

So, mowing the lawn last night, I came up with 2 reasons why it makes sense for Mueller - or anyone in the DOJ - to say POTUS can't be indicted. I'm curious what INGO might think of these.

1. He's the Chief Executive. That means, all those DOJ prosecutors work for him. Ultimately, in a technical way, he gets to decide what gets filed and what doesn't. The US Attorneys are delegated the task of prosecuting, but if a POTUS wanted to, I think they could look at every single indictment and decide which ones to file. Of course, functionally, the POTUS hands that task to the AG. But, in a very real way, POTUS could tell the AG not to allow anything to be filed against him. If Trump did that, what would INGO think? On a related note, it is difficult to imagine a US Attorney (or special counsel, since under the CFR, the special counsel is part of the DOJ) filing an indictment against their boss.

2. He's the Pardoner in Chief. This would be a bit crazy, but let's say an indictment did get filed. He could - I think - pardon himself. And everyone else involved. He could pardon Manafort now. There's a bit of precedent for pardoning people even before charges are filed. So, he could go on TV and make the case that this is a witch hunt/effort to delegitimize him/too flawed of an investigation/oh look at the latest playmate side piece I banged and that to help the country move one, he's going to pardon himself and any family members who are indicted. Because he knows they didn't intentionally do anything wrong and they're good people. I don't think he'd lose any of his base. The left would go even more crazy, which would ultimately help him.

Would something like that impact INGO-people's opinions of him and his presidency?

When you say indicted, are you speaking federally or at the state level as well?

 

[Trigger Time]

And no TLEX it wouldnt change my opinion of him. Republicans need to start spanking these Democrats who are the biggest hypocrites and criminals and traitors I've ever seen

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So, mowing the lawn last night, I came up with 2 reasons why it makes sense for Mueller - or anyone in the DOJ - to say POTUS can't be indicted. I'm curious what INGO might think of these.

1. He's the Chief Executive. That means, all those DOJ prosecutors work for him. Ultimately, in a technical way, he gets to decide what gets filed and what doesn't. The US Attorneys are delegated the task of prosecuting, but if a POTUS wanted to, I think they could look at every single indictment and decide which ones to file. Of course, functionally, the POTUS hands that task to the AG. But, in a very real way, POTUS could tell the AG not to allow anything to be filed against him. If Trump did that, what would INGO think? On a related note, it is difficult to imagine a US Attorney (or special counsel, since under the CFR, the special counsel is part of the DOJ) filing an indictment against their boss.

2. He's the Pardoner in Chief. This would be a bit crazy, but let's say an indictment did get filed. He could - I think - pardon himself. And everyone else involved. He could pardon Manafort now. There's a bit of precedent for pardoning people even before charges are filed. So, he could go on TV and make the case that this is a witch hunt/effort to delegitimize him/too flawed of an investigation/oh look at the latest playmate side piece I banged and that to help the country move one, he's going to pardon himself and any family members who are indicted. Because he knows they didn't intentionally do anything wrong and they're good people. I don't think he'd lose any of his base. The left would go even more crazy, which would ultimately help him.

Would something like that impact INGO-people's opinions of him and his presidency?

Looks like he could indeed pardon himself, but it may not hold up in court (if this article is correct). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...the-early-murmurs-about-pardons-quicktake-q-a

I was thinking along these lines, and I thought of Nixon, and sure enough the article mentions Nixon also:

"But some experts say a self-pardon would wilt under a court challenge. They point to legal advice given to President Richard Nixon in 1974 in connection with the Watergate scandal: "Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself," Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary Lawton told Nixon."

 

[T.Lex]

When you say indicted, are you speaking federally or at the state level as well?

Well, the DOJ can only indict at the federal level. (Ok, I think some federal agencies kinda can, but you get what I mean.)

I'm not sure any state laws can touch interference with federal elections. I guess there's an open question as to whether any state laws have been violated.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, the DOJ can only indict at the federal level. (Ok, I think some federal agencies kinda can, but you get what I mean.)

I'm not sure any state laws can touch interference with federal elections. I guess there's an open question as to whether any state laws have been violated.

I'm not just speaking of elections, just crimes... under the state, included.

 

[T.Lex]

Looks like he could indeed pardon himself, but it may not hold up in court (if this article is correct). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...the-early-murmurs-about-pardons-quicktake-q-a

I was thinking along these lines, and I thought of Nixon, and sure enough the article mentions Nixon also:

"But some experts say a self-pardon would wilt under a court challenge. They point to legal advice given to President Richard Nixon in 1974 in connection with the Watergate scandal: "Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself," Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary Lawton told Nixon."

Yeah, but I'm unconvinced of that - particularly with a narcissist in chief like Trump.

He could be willing to weather the ensuing constitutional crisis.

Who would sue to bring the case to court? The feds would be hamstrung by the other point - he gets to control what cases get brought by the DOJ. Let's say there's an indictment, he pardons himself, but a prosecutor continues to push it. He could fire that prosecutor and not appoint anyone else to pursue it. Then ask for a speedy trial. When that doesn't happen, case dismissed and can't be brought again.

Yeah, I think Mueller/Giuliani might be right about this one. I guess it isn't a "we can't" situation. They technically could. But there'd be so many ways Trump could get past it that it would really make things worse for the country. It becomes a "we won't" situation.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm not just speaking of elections, just crimes... under the state, included.

Like what? I'm not the most creative guy, but I can't think of any state crimes that would arise from (directly or indirectly) from the Russia investigation. Between the POTUS's role as foreign policy chief and the federal election context, I'm not seeing any nexus with state law.

Technically, a federal pardon would only be effective as to federal crimes.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yeah, but I'm unconvinced of that - particularly with a narcissist in chief like Trump.

He could be willing to weather the ensuing constitutional crisis.

Who would sue to bring the case to court? The feds would be hamstrung by the other point - he gets to control what cases get brought by the DOJ. Let's say there's an indictment, he pardons himself, but a prosecutor continues to push it. He could fire that prosecutor and not appoint anyone else to pursue it. Then ask for a speedy trial. When that doesn't happen, case dismissed and can't be brought again.

Yeah, I think Mueller/Giuliani might be right about this one. I guess it isn't a "we can't" situation. They technically could. But there'd be so many ways Trump could get past it that it would really make things worse for the country. It becomes a "we won't" situation.

Could a non-government (or at least non-federal government) entity bring suit? I'm thinking like the DNC. Or would it have to come from the DOJ? Maybe the DNC example would be more of a civil nature rather than criminal?

 

[Trigger Time]

As much as Kut wishes, President Trump hasnt committed any crimes.

 

[T.Lex]

Could a non-government (or at least non-federal government) entity bring suit? I'm thinking like the DNC. Or would it have to come from the DOJ? Maybe the DNC example would be more of a civil nature rather than criminal?

No - there wouldn't be standing to try and challenge the pardon. At least, that would be charting completely new territory IMHO. Yeah, someone like that might try, but I don't see how they would be the real party in interest for something like that.

As much as Kut wishes, President Trump hasnt committed any crimes.

Oh, I'm sure he has. He just hasn't been caught. And probably won't be.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Like what? I'm not the most creative guy, but I can't think of any state crimes that would arise from (directly or indirectly) from the Russia investigation. Between the POTUS's role as foreign policy chief and the federal election context, I'm not seeing any nexus with state law.

Technically, a federal pardon would only be effective as to federal crimes.

You'd know better than I, but aren't there a number of federal crimes that are redundant at the state level... and depending, both may try to move forward, or defer to the other?

 

[T.Lex]

You'd know better than I, but aren't there a number of federal crimes that are redundant at the state level... and depending, both may try to move forward, or defer to the other?

Yeah, but those are basically "normal" crimes - drugs, guns, securities violations. Elections (federal) and foreign-policy related crimes are generally federal crimes. States can't criminalize federal activities (basically).

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah, but those are basically "normal" crimes - drugs, guns, securities violations. Elections (federal) and foreign-policy related crimes are generally federal crimes. States can't criminalize federal activities (basically).

Ok, forget about everything else. Can a sitting president be indicted, at the state level, for such crimes?

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, forget about everything else. Can a sitting president be indicted, at the state level, for such crimes?

Probably.

If Trump were found with a kilo of cocaine in the JW Marriott, he could be arrested and charged in Marion County.

He'd probably get probation.

But he could probably be charged.

 

[printcraft]

Russia Helped Donald Trump in 2016, Senate Committee Says | Time

In 2016 didn’t the leaders of England, Canada, Germany, France and others PUBLICLY come out against Trump for president and endorse hitlary?
Seems like they directly influenced the election as well if that is the metric we are applying.

 

[jbombelli]

In 2016 didn’t the leaders of England, Canada, Germany, France and others PUBLICLY come out against Trump for president and endorse hitlary?
Seems like they directly influenced the election as well if that is the metric we are applying.

Yup. And if I recall, England may have even barred him from entering the country.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yup. And if I recall, England may have even barred him from entering the country.

Just some I'm getting this straight, you think that public statements made by the leaders of England, Canada, Germany, and France (and I haven't fact checked those claims) endorsing Clinton; are in the same league as the Russians: hacking the DNC (maybe the RNC too), tens of millions spent covertly in social media, purposefully targeting radical groups of opposing viewpoints, Russian agents setting up meetings with the Trump campaign, and attempting to hack state voter databases? You honestly see parity there?

Edit: Just checked Trump was not barred from England

 

[jbombelli]

Just some I'm getting this straight, you think that public statements made by the leaders of England, Canada, Germany, and France (and I haven't fact checked those claims) endorsing Clinton; are in the same league as the Russians: hacking the DNC (maybe the RNC too), tens of millions spent covertly in social media, purposefully targeting radical groups of opposing viewpoints, Russian agents setting up meetings with the Trump campaign, and attempting to hack state voter databases? You honestly see parity there?

Edit: Just checked Trump was not barred from England

Well... there was talk of him being barred in the media. In retrospect that was probably the media trying to help Hillary.

As far as the other leaders go, what level of interference in our elections do you find acceptable?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well... there was talk of him being barred in the media. In retrospect that was probably the media trying to help Hillary.

As far as the other leaders go, what level of interference in our elections do you find acceptable?

Well, they actually debated it in parliament, but it never came to fruition.

As far as "interference" goes, I think you're playing fast and loose with that word concerning the definition. If the leaders you are speaking of made their statement specifically for the consumption of the American public, then, I guess I would call that a "type" interference. If the leaders are simply making a statements of their preferences if solicited, then that's not interference... but even if that's not an acceptable distinction, to you, the leaders that were cited previously made their statements/actions (assumingly since I don't know what was said) above board not contrary to American law. The Russians engaged in covert, and under American law, illegal actions.

So if given a preference, I'd take the above board, legal, interference where I am presented information, know its origins, and have the ability to potentially hash out the speakers motives, rather than the Russian alternative.

 

[printcraft]

Well, they actually debated it in parliament, but it never came to fruition.

As far as "interference" goes, I think you're playing fast and loose with that word concerning the definition. If the leaders you are speaking of made their statement specifically for the consumption of the American public, then, I guess I would call that a "type" interference. If the leaders are simply making a statements of their preferences if solicited, then that's not interference... but even if that's not an acceptable distinction, to you, the leaders that were cited previously made their statements/actions (assumingly since I don't know what was said) above board not contrary to American law. The Russians engaged in covert, and under American law, illegal actions.

So if given a preference, I'd take the above board, legal, interference where I am presented information, know its origins, and have the ability to potentially hash out the speakers motives, rather than the Russian alternative.

So it did happen and was carried on EVERY NEWS NETWORK on the planet but it doesn't rise to the same level as 15 *******s named Demetri spamming facebook?
No influence whatsoever.
10-4