Quote:A Sitting Presidents Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
The Indictment and Criminal Prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the
capacity o f the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions
October 16, 2000
M e m o r a n d u m O p in io n f o r t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fi...0222_0.pdf

If you care to read the DOJ Order it's 39 pages long and goes through a lot of what the Constitution lays out.

Somewhere around page 20 (I forgot the exact page) it also talks about how the President is the top law enforcement agent in the U.S. with that he has the ability to hire, fire, control everything under the DOJ. So while it doesn't spell it out I bet that if you believe a President is unindictable while sitting....

you can not limit his powers as top law dog as a sitting President

But in the end this never was ruled on by any court and Starr had the same info but charged the President

In that ABC news article I linked it says Mueller could indict if he had the AG’s blessing. Mueller said he didn’t have the option to indict. To me that’s clearly saying Barr wouldn’t allow it.

(05-29-2019 01:23 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 01:22 PM)solohawks Wrote:  IMPEACH HIM ALREADY!!

Amazing both sides of the aisle seem to agree on this and it hasn't happened yet. Hurry up Dems!

Thats cause there is no good reason too.

But dems are going to do it anyways. Do.what youre going to do already

(05-29-2019 02:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  In that ABC news article I linked it says Mueller could indict if he had the AG’s blessing. Mueller said he didn’t have the option to indict. To me that’s clearly saying Barr wouldn’t allow it.

There was no law saying Mueller had to wait till Feb 14th 2019 to file his report or to indite the President. Using Barr as the reason the President is not charged......

EXCUSE #1854

(05-29-2019 02:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  In that ABC news article I linked it says Mueller could indict if he had the AG’s blessing. Mueller said he didn’t have the option to indict. To me that’s clearly saying Barr wouldn’t allow it.

Today would have been a good time to say that.

Or under oath to a Dem House

Orrrrrr crazy thought

That didnt happen

(05-29-2019 02:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  In that ABC news article I linked it says Mueller could indict if he had the AG’s blessing. Mueller said he didn’t have the option to indict. To me that’s clearly saying Barr wouldn’t allow it.

But there was absolutely nothing keeping him from saying in his report something to the effect of:
For the benefit of Congress we found in our investigation the President committed the following crimes.
A.
B.
C.
etc.

(05-29-2019 02:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  In that ABC news article I linked it says Mueller could indict if he had the AG’s blessing. Mueller said he didn’t have the option to indict. To me that’s clearly saying Barr wouldn’t allow it.

Consider your source......

(05-29-2019 02:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  In that ABC news article I linked it says Mueller could indict if he had the AG’s blessing. Mueller said he didn’t have the option to indict. To me that’s clearly saying Barr wouldn’t allow it.

Indict him for what?

I still have yet to see any sort of proof in the investigation's report or otherwise that any crime occurred by Trump or his campaign.

I have however, seen proof that a crime was committed by intelligence agencies spying on said campaign.

My guess is Mueller wants the dems to impeach on something, anything to stop Barr's investigation into the investigation.

I don't think there is a Trump supporter on this planet that panics about anything Mueller-related. This has been a hit-job from day 1... and it fell flat on its face.

There is no crime in the Mueller report... it is all there in black and white.

(05-29-2019 11:33 AM)king king Wrote:  So wait...Mueller says "If we had confidence the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

Is that the same thing as saying "We do not have confidence the president committed a crime, so we didn't say so."?

What a p ussy. If he committed a crime, say he did. Otherwise, stfu.

Amirite?

Yup. Pulled a Triple Homey with this one.

https://www.google.com/search?client=fir...Full+Lindy

Funny, now all the led around by their noses love them some Mueller again, it's comical. And SAD.

When in essence he didn't say a damn thing that wasn't in the silly report already.

Here’s something to ponder: Is amash just baiting the dems?

lulz

(05-29-2019 12:19 PM)Kronke Wrote:  lol jester, was that one of the krassenstein's bot accounts?

You were duped, mach.

Were?

Did you mean for that to be in the past tense?

(05-29-2019 03:22 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  I don't think there is a Trump supporter on this planet that panics about anything Mueller-related. This has been a hit-job from day 1... and it fell flat on its face.

There is no crime in the Mueller report... it is all there in black and white.

You're correct. Nobody panicked. That portion of the headline was Mach projecting... again.

(05-29-2019 12:26 PM)VA49er Wrote:  How many times can a person believe they are being led to the promised land only to have, yet again, his dream destroyed?

You must not be married

(05-29-2019 03:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:26 PM)VA49er Wrote:  How many times can a person believe they are being led to the promised land only to have, yet again, his dream destroyed?

You must not be married

I've stopped asking where the wife wants to eat. (That's my marriage promised land)

(05-29-2019 09:40 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/gma/special-counse...ories.html

That's about all I see here fast food guy! But do drive through again!

(05-29-2019 01:19 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 01:15 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 01:13 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:39 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

But you can’t indict a sitting President so that argument is bunk

Show me the law that says you can not charge a sitting President? You wont find it. Better yet show me where anything says you cant say...the president committed a crime?

I agree with you. I’m saying Mueller said he couldn’t indict a sitting President. I think he’s wrong.

Why is he wrong? Should he go to war over something that Barr likely wouldn't allow anyway?

(05-29-2019 01:24 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Mueller is saying he didn’t have the “option”. Reading between the lines Barr wouldn’t allow him????

Read your own article...


" "under longstanding department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional."

(05-29-2019 03:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:26 PM)VA49er Wrote:  How many times can a person believe they are being led to the promised land only to have, yet again, his dream destroyed?

You must not be married

(05-29-2019 04:23 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 01:24 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Mueller is saying he didn’t have the “option”. Reading between the lines Barr wouldn’t allow him????

Read your own article...


" "under longstanding department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional."

I too want to understand what makes this unconstitutional...