Posted on 03/23/2019 2:49:54 PM PDT by Cassius Flavia Agrippa
“I see you’re a fan of instant gratification.
No due process is allowed?”
I don’t know how you would draw that conclusion from what I wrote. IF there are, in point of fact, grand juries empaneled today working on some of the DOJ/FBI miscreants, I would expect that it would not be very far into the future when we would see some indictments. I served on our county criminal grand jury and we heard evidence and indicted people. But the grand jury process is simply a means of bypassing arraignment. People can be charged by the DOJ and arraigned before a judge without involving a grand jury. Seems to me that with all the evidence around on a lot of these people we want to see going to jail, the DOJ could simply arrest them and drag them before a judge, have them enter a plea, and set bail. And do all of it out in the open. Of course, they are unlikely to do that.
There you go with the negative waves.
Everything you said before that was pointless.
What law, dilweed? It’s a DOJ regulation that can be changed at anytime. At the whim of the next President. If the congress were to pass a law limiting the President’s authority under the Constitution, that would be what’s called unconstitutional.
Did I mention the POTUS IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH?
Say no to oxy and smoking banana peels, goron.
Well, if we’re going to have disclosure, fine. But let’s have full disclosure: Mueller’s report in addition to the FISA applications; the memoranda pertinent to the opening and continuation of the investigation; the testimony in secret hearings; the scope memorandum Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein issued on August 2, 2017, after failing to cite a crime when he appointed Mueller — let’s have all of it.
Eggsactly!
Put it all out there.
The Democrats are demanding transparency?
Then give them transparency, good and hard.
the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. - from Article II, Section 2.
Who appointed Mueller?
Some court appointed Ken Starr, as I recall. Did a federal judge take it upon himself to appoint Mueller, or did the Attorney General do it?
As was pointed out, it was easler to appoint Mueller than it was to get Jeff Sessions confirmed....something not right about that.
The mueller investigation(coup) was illegitimate and illegal. The corrupt apparatchiks from a previous treason regime don’t get to ‘investigate’ a newly elected President of the United States. That’s not how it works. Even with the help of a traitorous AG, Jeff ‘the rat bastard’ Sessions
What is incorporation by reference?
Incorporation by reference was established by statute and allows Federal agencies to meet the requirement to publish regulations in the Federal Register by referring to materials already published elsewhere. For an incorporation to be valid, the Director of the Federal Register must approve it. The legal effect of incorporation by reference is that the material is treated as if it were published in full in the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 552(a)). This material, like any other properly issued regulation, has the force of law.
It wasn’t the first ever - in my lifetime - Kennedy assasinated - that was a coup. Nixon got thrown out - that was a coup. Obama got thrown in - that was a coup.
And yet that is indeed how it worked.
The mueller investigation(coup) was illegitimate and illegal.
If that is so then it needs to be proven that it was illegitimate and illegal. Can it be proven yet in a court of law?
The emotional impetus to "do something now" is what lets perps walk on technicalities. A rushed investigation/prosecution isn't justice rendered.
Ok! You go first! File away, friend. I’ve only
Been a lawyer for 28 years. Obviously I’m unable to grasp the nuance
Can’t believe that this administration has actually been able to function properly without an Attorney General since Granny recused herself.
I see you don’t know the law either.
The pres has the absolute, plenary (look it up) authority to ORDER AND DEMAND the appointment of a special counsel. If the AG refuses, he can be fired on the spot. Indeed he can be fired on the spot because his shoes aren’t shined to the president’s liking.
Laying the special counsel aside, the pres has the absolute, unquestioned plenary and total authority to walk over to doj and COMMAND that each and every single us attorney on planet earth drop each and every single thing that he or she is doing and that instant begin investigating dem corruption. His authority over DOJ is plenary, and he can order any investigation he wants at any time he wants, and he can order that any investigation anywhere at any time be ceased for whatever reason he chooses.
Then show me, don't tell me!!!
Perhaps this will give you a start.
Special Counsel Investigations: History, Authority, Appointment and Removal Updated March 13, 2019
What Presidency would ever order or demand an investigation of itself?
Because of the potential conflicts of interest that may arise when the executive branch investigates itself, there have often been calls for criminal investigations by prosecutors with independence from the executive branch.
You are probably right on both accounts:
1) The country will never prosecute HRC or BO. It would be a very messy affair akin to an impeachment, and few would be willing to go through that long ordeal. But, their underlings in the cabal who devised and carried out the plot simply must be punished to the full extent of the law. Otherwise, at least half the country will conclude (and rightfully so) that we have a two tiered justice system. Of that, there will be no doubt. It also be tantamount to acknowledging that there are no limits on the powers of our highest law enforcement agencies.
2) This is unquestionably the biggest scandal in our political history. Watergate is not even close.
What in the name of God are you talking about?
“show me”? “investigate itself”?
LET’S KEEP IT SIMPLE:
Does the pres have the authority to order DOJ to investigate anything he deems fit? Yes or no?
Does he ALSO have the authority to order the AG to appoint a special counsel? Yes or no?
But that is the whole contention. Why do you want to lay it aside?
... drop each and every single thing that he or she is doing and that instant begin investigating dem corruption.
Yet POTUS didn't do that, did he?
Perhaps he considered Sessions' actions with the OIG and Huber to be sufficient.
His authority over DOJ is plenary, and he can order any investigation he wants at any time he wants, and he can order that any investigation anywhere at any time be ceased for whatever reason he chooses.
So why hasn't he done that with Preet Bharara and the Southern District of New York?
Perhaps concerns about 'obstruction of justice' motivate him?
So much for your plenary powers argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.