You Lose, Democrats: Mueller Told Trump Legal Team The President Cannot Be Indicted

Townhall.com ^ | May 16, 2018 | Matt Vespa

[Cheerio]

You don’t need an indictment for impeachment. All you need is the votes.

AND apparently the thinking in 2018 is that there is no requirement for a "High crimes and misdemeanors"

High crimes and misdemeanors, however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses.

[FreeReign]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 says that "the executive Power shall be vested in a President...".

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.

[sourcery]

The Constitution does not require that all Executive Branch officials be appointed by the President. Nor does it require that he must approve their firing. In fact, for most of them, it is illegal for him to directly fire them. Nor does the Constitution require that all Constitutional officers report to the President (to say nothing of all the other employees.)

Military officers can be arrested by their subordinates, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff (UCMJ.)

Those facts utterly destroy your argument.

[FreeReign]

the Constitution does not require that all Executive Branch officials be appointed by the President.

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.

[sourcery]

the Constitution says in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 that "the executive Power shall be vested in a President...".

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.

[StAnDeliver]

"Were you to argue that a sitting President can’t be jailed or imprisoned, you’d have a case. As it is, you don’t."

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.

[StAnDeliver]

"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."

Almost as entertaining as this thread!

[FreeReign]

The Constitution says in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 that "the executive Power shall be vested in a President...".

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.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

The idiots on FOX radio “news” mentioned this story, then added that “19 people have been indicted and four have pleaded guilty.”

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.

[BeauBo]

(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)

[gleeaikin]

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?

[ExTxMarine]

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!

[entropy12]

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

[entropy12]

None — I repeat — NONE have been indicted for Trump collusion with Russia.

[entropy12]

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.

[sourcery]

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?

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.

[sourcery]

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?

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.

[FreeReign]

Read Article II Section 2 Clause 2, quit being intellectually dense, and learn something.

Article II Section 2 Clause 2

He (the president) 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.

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.

[FreeReign]

BTW, the other points in your response I concede are correct. My above response was about the following exchange where you wrong...

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.

[sourcery]

You are lacking in knowledge on the basic principles of the Constitution, and your ability to read and understand the Constitution is poor.

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.