Mueller's team told President's legal team they cannot indict a sitting President

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: face23785

That makes sense, but as you say, Trump can still be impeached. Still, good to know he can't be indicted for sure. Although I suspected as much, it is good to know for certain.

Yes, but it will still take more than an orange hue and a deep hatred from the left to impeach him, there will need to be some criminal activity, which seems to be missing as of late.

a reply to: angeldoll

True, they can't. It's law.

Which law is that? The OP's source states it's a matter of department guidelines, not any law that I have seen. Not to mention there is no precedence to look at.

If what you say was true, this should be quite concerning, especially for people on a conspiracy site. What this means is that the president is above the law( which poses consituational issues with the 14th amendment), cannot be held accountable in the courts for his actions, if he does break the law, and he may not even be removable from office if his friends are in the majority of congress.

It appears people are supporting the idea of having a corrupt head of government with no means to remove him or hold him accountable.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: face23785

That makes sense, but as you say, Trump can still be impeached. Still, good to know he can't be indicted for sure. Although I suspected as much, it is good to know for certain.

Yes, but it will still take more than an orange hue and a deep hatred from the left to impeach him, there will need to be some criminal activity, which seems to be missing as of late.

But is it just criminal activity? Can it not also be mental incompetency, (such as mental illness), lack of integrity and morals? Maybe even a horrible role model?
In other words, just "unfit" for the office? I don't know, but I would think there must be some room for those kinds of things.

a reply to: introvert

Yeah. DOJ guidelines.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: introvert

Yeah. DOJ guidelines.

So not laws?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: introvert

Yeah. DOJ guidelines.

So not laws?

Wow Intro.

A guideline seems more akin to a policy than a law.
Just shoot me now.

a reply to: Lumenari

Sounds legit.

Thanks.

So, why does everyone (generalization) equate impeachment, and related stuff, to removing a president?
(I should know/recall this answer and more, but in this case, currently, I do not)

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Lumenari

That is not different from anything I said. The indictment isn’t going to come from Mueller. Just like I said. There’s no shocking news here.

Obtuse much?

They cannot indict a sitting President.

They certainly could have indicted Hillary.

It doesn't matter where an indictment comes from, in regards to a sitting president.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Lmao. Two of his favorite water carriers wrote him a request? Why didn't they just look over their shoulders and ask while he was zipping his fly?

a reply to: Lumenari

Comey could not have indicted Hillary. All Comey could do was to recommend or not recommend an indictment. I didn’t address who could actually indict, only that Comey or Mueller couldn’t.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: introvert

Yeah. DOJ guidelines.

So not laws?

You mean the guidelines by which they apply the laws?

You know, like the guidelines used in courts given by the Supreme Court? Legal precedent?

Not sure if deliberately obtuse or just willfully ignorant?

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: introvert

Yeah. DOJ guidelines.

So not laws?

Wow Intro.

A guideline seems more akin to a policy than a law.
Just shoot me now.

I was just making sure I had not missed anything.

There are not any laws stating the president cannot be indicted. It's OLC "guidelines".

a reply to: Lumenari

You mean the guidelines by which they apply the laws?

Sure. Still not laws.

You know, like the guidelines used in courts given by the Supreme Court? Legal precedent?

Have an example?

Not sure if deliberately obtuse or just willfully ignorant?

I'm not sure what the problem is. You confirmed exactly what I posted.

a reply to: introvert

It just means you have to wait until after their presidency, by proper removal or playing the waiting game.

Of course it does cause concern, by that time a new boogeyman will be at the helm, and some suggest we shouldn't look back.

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: introvert

It just means you have to wait until after their presidency, by proper removal or playing the waiting game.

Of course it does cause concern, by that time a new boogeyman will be at the helm, and some suggest we shouldn't look back.

It should be concerning.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Lumenari

Comey could not have indicted Hillary. All Comey could do was to recommend or not recommend an indictment. I didn’t address who could actually indict, only that Comey or Mueller couldn’t.

~sigh~

The FBI can not indict someone, of course. In the case of Comey. He can refer it to prosecutors.

A Special Counsel can most certainly indict... after all, they are PROSECUTORS and that is their job. They have indicted others so far. Mueller can most certainly indict anyone he wants to. Except....

They cannot indict a sitting President. This is simple English and I don't know how to make the words smaller for you.

Nobody can indict a sitting President. If anyone does, the sitting President can simply ignore it.

You are comparing two different things and ignoring the obvious.

I'll leave you at that... you have used up enough of my time today.

a reply to: introvert

SoOo.. you want me to give you examples of Supreme Court cases that have set legal precedent?

All of them.

Do you think that legal precedent and DoJ guidelines do not apply because they are not codified into law?

You just keep spinning away in that little mental box of yours.

I'm off to my orchard... you are not time well spent.

a reply to: Lumenari

SoOo.. you want me to give you examples of Supreme Court cases that have set legal precedent?

All of them.

Those that apply to this particular case or were similar in nature, yes. Please.

Do you think that legal precedent and DoJ guidelines do not apply because they are not codified into law?

I don't believe there is any legal precedent for a case such as this. No sitting president has been indicted in our history.

You just keep spinning away in that little mental box of yours. I'm off to my orchard... you are not time well spent.

I don't care. Stick to the topic and leave your irrelevant emotional outbursts for the apple trees. Maybe they will give a #.

a reply to: face23785

No we all assumed he would go with that.
That won't stop the impeachment though.

a reply to: Cygnis

It's pretty much a given and assumed by most.