Posted on 05/16/2018 6:33:41 PM PDT by Kaslin
Ever since Donald J. Trump won a stunning victory against Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, the Left was convinced there was something at play to cause this event. How could the politically tone deaf Hillary lose? How could a woman with no charisma, economic agenda, or political skill lose? How could a woman who wrote off half the country as deplorable racists lose? You know the answer to this, but for liberals it had to be the Russians. The mocking of the GOP over Russia being our biggest geopolitical rival was relegated to the trashcan. Now, it was the neo-red scare, a Russophobia that was both unhinged and unwarranted. Democrats now considered any contact with a Russian an act of treason. If you had Stoli vodka, it was treason. It was totally insane, but also insanely entertaining.
Did the Russians try and interfere in our elections? Probably—but nowhere near the level of sophistication that the Left thinks caused Clinton to lose. There was no altering of vote tallies. It was mostly shoddy memes run by Facebook, ad campaigns that devoted little money given the length of the campaign and how much money that was spent during this period.
Still, there were allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin to tilt the election. In July of 2016, the FBI began its counterintelligence investigation into the matter. This probe cited the Trump dossier, a piece of partisan campaign literature compiled by former MI6 spook Christopher Steele, which was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democrats. The Clinton camp contracted Fusion GPS, who then hired Steele to dig up dirt on Trump.
The Left was bracing for collusion to be confirmed. They wanted all the nastiness to come out in order to stop Trump. The Resistance waited in eager anticipation of something devastating, something impeachable to drop. Nothing ever did. It was an endless string of nothing burgers. Now, we’re being told that Special Counsel Robert Meuller, who took over the investigation in May, told the president’s legal team that Trump cannot be indicted; citing a DOJ memo that stated it would be an unconstitutional act, preventing the executive from efficiently carrying out its duties (via Fox News):
President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, told Fox News on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller has told the president's legal team he will follow Justice Department guidance and not seek an indictment against Trump.
Giuliani, himself a former federal prosecutor and mayor of New York City, also told Fox News that Mueller's investigators have not responded to five information requests from the president's team. That has forced Trump's legal team to push off making a decision about whether the president will sit for an interview with the special counsel -- a decision they had hoped to reach by Thursday.
The precedent that federal prosecutors cannot indict a sitting president is laid out in a 1999 Justice Department memo. Giuliani told Fox News that Mueller has no choice but to follow its guidance.
"This case is essentially over," Giuliani said. "They're just in denial."
One way to break the news to the Resistance that 2 years of leaks and reporting to the contrary, they've got nothing. https://t.co/Y3m7otVYyi— Mollie (@MZHemingway) May 16, 2018
NEW: Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has informed President Donald Trump's attorneys that they have concluded that they cannot indict a sitting president, according to the President's lawyer. @DanaBashCNN scoops https://t.co/eO63TfGY5p— Yashar Ali ?? (@yashar) May 16, 2018
Rudy Giuliani tells @FoxNews that Robert Mueller told @realDonaldTrump legal team two weeks ago that he will abide by DOJ guidelines that a President cannot be indicted. Giuliani said Mueller has no choice but to honor a 1999 Clinton-era memo— John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) May 16, 2018
In early April, Mueller reportedly told the president that while he is under investigation, he’s not the target of a criminal probe. Later in the month, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also told the president he had nothing to worry about concerning the Russia probe, or the investigation into his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who is under the microscope for possible bank fraud and FEC violations concerning payment he made to porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election over her alleged affair with Trump back in 2006.
Now, over at NBC News, they said an exception can be given:
During the final months of the administration of former President Bill Clinton in 2000, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel said in a memo that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would be unconstitutional."
Neal Katyal, acting solicitor general in the administration of former President Barack Obama — the administration's top courtroom lawyer — wrote the current special counsel regulations as a young lawyer in Clinton's Justice Department in 1999. They specify that a special counsel "shall comply" with the policies of the Justice Department, for whom Mueller works.
Katyal said on MSNBC's "The Beat With Ari Melber" in February that means that Mueller is bound by the 2000 Justice Department memo but that he "can seek exceptions."
"This old opinion from 20 years ago does preclude, in general, the Justice Department from indicting a sitting president for constitutional reasons," Katyal said. "But an exception can be given."
I doubt that such an exception will be executed in this affair. So, overall—this could be the ballgame. Concerning Congress, they can impeach. And the Democrats are sure positioning themselves to do just that if they retake the House. The base wants it. The progressive wing of the party wants it. The low energy exhibited from leadership on this front is for political purposes. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) was forced to resign over sexual misconduct claims last year. He was a ranking Democrat on the House judiciary Committee. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), a reported constitutional scholar, has taken his placein the chance that there’s a showdown between Congress and the White House. They’re still getting ready for that fight. How can we avid it? It’s only if the GOP votes and wins the 2018 midterms.
So, is this game over? Yeah, it looks like it could be. You lose again, Democrats.
All Executive officials ultimately answer to the people. Indirectly, they all answer to the Congress, which Constitutionally has power superior to that of the President (as proven by their power to impeach him.)
Sorry, that's just wrong. Officials in the Executive Branch directly answer to the Chief Executive. The Constitution states clearly that the executive power is vested in the president. Congress has the right to compel hearings and fund or defund the executive branch.
Under the rule of law, everyone, even the king or the emperor is subject to the law, without exception. Therefore, a President can be indicted. This is not a debatable point.
And you ignore again that the process of impeachment and conviction does subject the president to indictment once he's removed.
Military officers can be arrested by their subordinates, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff (UCMJ.)
Those facts utterly destroy your argument.
Dude, the Constitution says in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 that "the executive Power shall be vested in a President...".
Military officers can be arrested by their subordinates, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff (UCMJ.)
And the military officers and their subordinates all answer up the chain ultimately to the Commander in Chief.
Those facts utterly destroy your arguments.
Irrelevant. Otherwise, only the President could actually be a prosecutor, and would have to personally convene every Grand Jury, would have to personally make each and every arrest, etc.
The President has full authority to delegate "the Executive power" to anyone the Senate confirms to such office. And the Constitution gives Congress the authority to appoint whomever it may please to any executive-branch position it sees fit to create:
Article II, section 2, clause 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but 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.
Prosecutors are among those whom Congress could appoint themselves, and not just confirm, should Congress so desire. They are "inferior" officers, unlike Cabinet Secretaries ("Heads of Departments.") The Constitution also allows "Heads of Departments" to make appointments all by themselves, without any Presidential approval. The President has zero authority to directly fire anyone whom he did not directly appoint. That's settled law.
Key points:
1) Just because the Constitution vests the "Executive Power of The United States" in the office of the President (note: in the office, and not in the person himself) absolutely does not mean that the man holding the office cannot be indicted. Such an interpretation would violate the principle of the rule of law.
2) The fact that the President can be denied the power (by Congress) to appoint Executive Branch officers, and therefore denied the power to fire them, proves beyond any possibility of refutation that officers of the Executive Branch have the Constitutional authority to exercise the Executive power of the United States without Presidential knowledge or approval.
Not my words, not my argument, not my case.
It's the prevailing code that has survived a two-term Republican and two-term Democrat president.
In fact, were you to actually take the time to read it, you would find that the 2000 document merely aggregated the de jure Constitutional opinion of legal scholars - on both sides - going back to Nixon/Agnew.
As such, it has obtained the penumbra of law, as no contrary action has been taken, no criminal indictment made, in the 50 years since Nixon took his second oath of office; an era that includes a successful stress test of the Constitutional restraints as directed by the document: President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton III committing prima facie perjury in front of a grand jury.
Almost as entertaining as this thread!
Irrelevant. Otherwise, only the President could actually be a prosecutor, and would have to personally convene every Grand Jury, would have to personally make each and every arrest, etc.
That makes no sense. Vested power in the Chief Executive can be delegated. It doesn't mean that the power still can't be executed by the Chief Executive. Do you really not know what it means to delegate authority?
The President has full authority to delegate "the Executive power" to anyone the Senate confirms to such office.
Yes, of course.
And the Constitution gives Congress the authority to appoint whomever it may please to any executive-branch position it sees fit to create:
No it doesn't. Not without a nomination by the Chief Executive. Name one such appointment by Congress.
Prosecutors are among those whom Congress could appoint themselves...
Name one prosecutor that Congress has appointed without first being nominated by the president.
The Constitution also allows "Heads of Departments" to make appointments all by themselves, without any Presidential approval. The President has zero authority to directly fire anyone whom he did not directly appoint.
No. The Constitution allows the president to delegate power, so that inferior officers may be hired by others in the executive branch. That doesn't mean that president surrenders the power to hire and fire such inferior officers.
1) Just because the Constitution vests the "Executive Power of The United States" in the office of the President (note: in the office, and not in the person himself) absolutely does not mean that the man holding the office cannot be indicted. Such an interpretation would violate the principle of the rule of law.
Once again... the president can be indicted after impeachment and removal. Thus the Chief Executive is not above the law. And you are still avoiding the question that I keep asking you. Who does such an "inferior" prosecutor of a Chief Executive answer to?? ANSWER the question.
2) The fact that the President can be denied the power (by Congress) to appoint Executive Branch officers, and therefore denied the power to fire them, proves beyond any possibility of refutation that officers of the Executive Branch have the Constitutional authority to exercise the Executive power of the United States without Presidential knowledge or approval.
Your premise was false. Your conclusion is false.
Of course, crappy FOX radio news didn’t bother to mention that this had nothing to do with the 2016 presidential election.
I heard that, and yelled as much at the radio.
(Satire Alert!)
WASHINGTON, D.C. - After discovering no evidence of collusion between President Trump and Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election, and after accidentally uncovering evidence incriminating the Clinton campaign, FBI Director Robert Mueller directed his attention to Ukraine.
Ukraine ignoring Mueller's demands for fabricated dossiers is "…in my mind the strongest evidence yet" of Trump-Ukrainian collusion to influence the last election, according to Mueller.
With the Ukrainians stonewalling and the Russian well having run dry, Mueller has turned his attention to possible ties between the Trump Campaign and the Ottoman Empire.
"I am leaving no stone unturned," said Mueller at a press conference this afternoon. "We know there was collusion because it's widely reported in the media. If it wasn't Russia, and if it isn't Ukraine, then it has to be somebody. Today I have issued a subpoena to Grand Sultan Mehmed VI to testify before a grand jury about what he knew and when he knew it."
(from The People's Cube: http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/mueller-ottoman-empire-probe-may-show-evidence-of-collusion-t20109.html)
Di Mueller say he cannot indict Trump, or did Juliani say he was told by Mueller he cannot be indicted? Slight difference there. I have been rather puzzled by some of Juliani’s statements. Wonder if he is building an appeal case for faulty representation by a lawyer?
This was NEVER about indicting President Trump; this was about creating as much political discourse and making Trump’s administration seem as “scandal-ridden” as possible.
PERIOD! NOTHING ELSE!
Why? Just because one was elected by 62 Million voters and the other was appointed by Rod Rosenweasel, does not mean the elected dude can’t be indicted. /S
None — I repeat — NONE have been indicted for Trump collusion with Russia.
Right, a man who was elected by 62 million Americans can be superseded by a single lawyer appointed by deputy AG. Why not just abolish the elections and save 125 Million Americans time and trouble to go and vote.
You clearly have no clue about this matter. There is no such provision in the Constitution. There is no such law. There is no such "code." What you're referring to is a written opinion of a previous Attorney General. That "opinion" does not have the force of law. It can be used to govern the behavior of employees of the Department Of Justice, but cannot, would not, and will not be used should the matter ever come before a Federal court. It's that simple.
With those words, you've conceded the debate: The authority to prosecute can be delegated. If it's delegated, then it can be exercised by whomever it is delegated to.
Me: And the Constitution gives Congress the authority to appoint whomever it may please to any executive-branch position it sees fit to create:
You: _No it doesn't. Not without a nomination by the Chief Executive. Name one such appointment by Congress._
Just stop being so intellectually dishonest. It matters not whether Congress has ever actually exercised its Contitutionally-granted authority to have "lesser officers" appointed by someone not a member of the Executive Branch. What matters is the fact that the semantics of the Constitutional clause which states that the "Executive Power of The United States" is vested in a President of the United States must be determined based on the entire text of the Constitution. And in that text, Congress is given the authority to have someone who is not a member of the Executive Branch appoint "lesser officers" of the Executive Branch. And that fact utterly destroys the wrongful interpretation you're pushing, even without considering the "rule of law" issue.
The Constitution allows the president to delegate power, so that inferior officers may be hired by others in the executive branch.
So you can't read. Nice to know. Article II, clearly says that Congress may empower "Heads of Departments" to make such appointments without even consulting the President, and without his approval:
...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.
That doesn't mean that president surrenders the power to hire and fire such inferior officers.
The President has no power to fire a "lesser officer" appointed by a Federal Court. The whole point of that grant of power to Congress was to absolutely prevent that. No court would ever rule otherwise, and you know it.
Many believe that the firing of an FBI Director, or of a US Attorney, or of an Attorney General (all of whom are appointed by the President, not by a Federal Court) would result in a "Constitutional Crisis" (or already has done so.) The reaction to a President firing a "lesser officer" appointed by a Federal Court would result in a whole new level of "resistance." Impeachment would follow automatically, assuming the Federal courts didn't nullify it (which they would, if asked.)
Who does such an "inferior" prosecutor of a Chief Executive answer to?? ANSWER the question.
I've already answered it: Only the person who made the appointment can fire the official, once confirmed by Congress. Although Congress can, of course, always impeach and then remove the person.
I know this because I actually lived through Watergate. Nixon was legally unable to fire Cox directly. He had to order his then Attorney General (Elliot Richardson) to do it, who refused -- as was his legal right to do. So Nixon had to fire his Attorney General. He could not legally fire Cox directly, or he would have done so. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
That's settled law. It aso utterly destroys your argument.
Article II Section 2 Clause 2
Congress establishes departments and offices by law. For inferior officers of these departments, Congress "vests" (a.k.a confers) the power to appointment, "in the president alone", to the "Courts of Law" or in the "Heads of Departments".
Congress does't have the power to appoint.
Congress doesn't appoint.
For inferior officers, Congress vests the power to the appoint.
For inferior officers, it's the president, the courts of law and the heads of departments that are conferred the right to appoint.
You don't understand the difference between having the right to appoint, and conferring the right to appoint. I would suggest you learn the difference.
I would suggest that you go to a site like Find Law or some other equivalent site and read the explanations for Article II Section 2 Clause 2
You are lacking in knowledge on the basic principles of the Constitution, and your ability to read and understand the Constitution is poor.
s: And the Constitution gives Congress the authority to appoint whomever it may please to any executive-branch position it sees fit to create:
fr: _No it doesn't. Not without a nomination by the Chief Executive. Name one such appointment by Congress._
s:Just stop being so intellectually dishonest. It matters not whether Congress has ever actually exercised its Contitutionally-granted authority to have "lesser officers" appointed by someone not a member of the Executive Branch. What matters is the fact that the semantics of the Constitutional clause which states that the "Executive Power of The United States" is vested in a President of the United States must be determined based on the entire text of the Constitution. And in that text, Congress is given the authority to have someone who is not a member of the Executive Branch appoint "lesser officers" of the Executive Branch. And that fact utterly destroys the wrongful interpretation you're pushing, even without considering the "rule of law" issue.
That's your problem, not mine.
You don't understand the difference between having the right to appoint, and conferring the right to appoint. I would suggest you learn the difference.
Wrong. I understand the difference quite well. Re-rereading my past comments, I see that I unfortunately managed to give the impression that Congress actually could directly appoint Executive Branch officials, instead of having the power to control who may appoint them. For that, I must apologize. My statements were poorly worded.
That said, you're avoiding the issue: The issue is not whom Congress may or may not appoint to what office, it's the fact that Congress can deny the President the authority to appoint people to serve as officers of the Executive Branch. Not only have you failed to refute that fact, you can't. Because it's right there in Article II, section 2, clause 2. And that fact utterly destroys your interpretation of Article II, section 1, clause 1.
Worse, by your silence, you've conceded the point that there are officials of the Executive Branch whom the President cannot directly fire. One such was the special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox (The Saturday Night Massacre.) The fact that Nixon had to fire his Attorney General (Richardson) in order to get an acting Attorney General who was willing to fire Cox really says all that needs to be said on the matter. But you know that. It's why you ignored the point.
If President Nixon could have directly fired Cox, then why did he need to fire Richardson? If he could not legally fire Cox, then you're interpretation of Article II is invalid. It really is that simple.
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.