Trump attorneys' letter to Mueller spells out legal arguments ...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

What do you think this latest news about Manafort will do to Judge Ellis' decision?

Probably nothing since Ellis has requested documentation the other judge didnt.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

He cannot be the judge in his own case. That would put him above the law.

No he can in fact pardon himself. Point out in the Constitution where it says he cant. You are confusing constitutional authority, in this case pardon power, with an established rule in the judicial branch that does not stem from the constitution.

Mississippi vs. Johnson and other supreme court rulings have said they have no power to get involved when the authority the president is using is A - constitutional and B - reserved solely to the president. There are quite a few examples that stem from federal judges who were impeached by Congress. The judges affected filed suit alleging their rights were being violated by congress's lack of judicial procedure and the following of criminal law and protocols to remove them. Every single case brought was thrown out by the court and every ruling stated the judicial branch has no authority to get involved in another branches affairs when that branch is exercising their constitutional authority.

This is not a hard concept to understand unless of course it doesnt support your agenda or reality.

a reply to: Xcathdra

with an established rule in the judicial branch that does not stem from the constitution.

well said

it was not even a judgment nor an argument made just a one liner of supreme guessing that gave birth to the whole one can not judge themselves line of twisting thought into pardoning power. sad

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Xcathdra

with an established rule in the judicial branch that does not stem from the constitution.

well said

it was not even a judgment nor an argument made just a one liner of supreme guessing that gave birth to the whole one can not judge themselves line of twisting thought into pardoning power. sad

Like Judicial review...

If the President pardons himself and the majority of the population doesnt like it they can vote him out of office. That is the legal remedy for the perceived grievance. People seem to not understand the difference between an individual and the office of the President.

* - Supreme Court rules for president in separation of powers case - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a board overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission operated under rules that violated the Constitution's separation of powers clause.

* - Myers v. United States

3. The President is empowered by the Constitution to remove any executive officer appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and this power is not subject in its exercise to the assent of the Senate, nor can it be made so by an act of Congress. Pp. 119, 125.

4. The provision of Art. II, § 1, of the Constitution that "the Executive power shall be vested in a President" is a grant of the power, and not merely a naming of a department of the government. Pp. 151, 163.

5. The provisions of Art. II, § 2, which blend action by the legislative branch, or by part of it, in the work of the Executive, are limitations upon this general grant of the Executive power which are to be strictly construed, and not to be extended by implication. P. 164.

6. It is a canon of interpretation that real effect should be given to all the words of the Constitution. P. 151.

7. Removal of executive officials from office is an executive function; the power to remove, like the power to appoint, is part of "the Executive power," -- a conclusion which is confirmed by the obligation "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Pp. 161, 164.

8. The power of removal is an incident of the power to appoint; but such incident does not extend the Senate's power of checking appointments, to removals. Pp. 119, 121, 126, 161.

9. The excepting clause in § 2 of Art. II, providing

but Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers.

* - The Pocket Veto Case

(No. 565)

The power thus conferred upon the President cannot be narrowed or cut down by Congress, nor the time within which it is to be exercised lessened, directly or indirectly. P. 677.

* -

Judicial Review of Impeachments

SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Annotations

It was long assumed that no judicial review of the impeachment process was possible, that impeachment presents a true “political question” case, i. e. , that the Constitution’s conferral on the Senate of the “sole” power to try impeachments is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of trial procedures to the Senate to decide without court review. That assumption was not contested until very recently, when Judges Nixon and Hastings challenged their Senate convictions.907

In the Judge Nixon case, the Court held that a claim to judicial review of an issue arising in an impeachment trial in the Senate presents a nonjusticiable “political question.”908 Specifically, the Court rejected a claim that the Senate had departed from the meaning of the word “try” in the impeachment clause by relying on a special committee to take evidence, including testimony. But the Court’s “political question” analysis has broader application, and appears to place the whole impeachment process off limits to judicial review.909

* -

United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 150 (1833), was a case in the United States in which the defendant, George Wilson, was convicted of robbing the US Mail in Pennsylvania and sentenced to death.[1] Due to his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by Andrew Jackson. Wilson, however, refused the pardon. The Supreme Court was thus asked to rule on the case.[1]

The decision was that if the prisoner does not accept the pardon, it is not in effect: "A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it is rejected, we have discovered no power in this court to force it upon him."

he Pardoning Power

The power to pardon comes from Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the president "Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States." While the Supreme Court has interpreted the power broadly -- "It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment" -- it is limited to those offenses falling under the jurisdiction of the pardoning official. Therefore, Mr. Obama has the authority to issue pardons for federal crimes.

There are no statutory or judicial limits on the number of pardons or commutations a president can grant.

edit on 6-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

a reply to: howtonhawky

muellers appointment violates the appointment clause because of what you say about the scope givin to the appointment. the scope is outside the bounds of the constitution and renders any future actions null and void over time

uh... That would be a big NO.

It is absurd on the face of it.

a reply to: howtonhawky

you are full of opinions here

And you are certainly full of something, and whatever that something is, it is not understanding.

the only way for muellers appointment to be constitutional would be if a crime was cited in the appointment.

Exactly where in the Constitution does it specify the form that a Special Counsel appointment must take in order to be 'Constitutional'? Where does the Constitution say anything about a Special Counsel (other than granting Congress the general authority to make laws putting such offices in place)?

there were zero crimes cited in the scope zero criminal codes

there is in fact a specification to investigate suspicious activity, namely: (source)

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a).

Item (i) relates specifically to U.S. Election law and interference from foreign sources. Material aid from foreign sources is strictly forbidden by the Election Law, and so-called 'dirt files' (such as was sought by Trump Jr. from the Russians about Clinton) is a material aid. Personal experience with this provision: the Obama 2012 campaign would not sell me one of their 'birth certificate' mugs because I live in Australia, even though I am an American citizen born in Michigan.

Item (ii) means that if, in the course of investigating those links, they turn up other crimes they can investigate those crimes. So, if Joe Blogs tries to say that that bribe they just discovered didn't have to do with the campaign, it had to do with something else altogether, they can certainly investigate that 'something else'. (e.g. money laundering and the Stormy Daniels payoff).

Item (iii) has to do with this:

§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.

(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

(b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.

(c)Civil and administrative jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.

Notice that paragraph (a) says the Counsel will be provided a specific factual statement about what he is to investigate. That is the document quoted above (which also includes a reference to Comey's testamony as part of that factual statement). It also authorizes the Special Counsel to investigate attempts to interfere with the investigation, such as obstruction of justice, etc.

Paragraph (b) says the SC needs to get authorization from the AG to investigate matters outside the original jurisdiction. So Mueller can investigate the laundering of Russian money through the campaign via the NRA to payoff Daniels, but he needs further authorization to investigate whether or not the Daniels payoff was in and of itself a crime if he wants to do that.

Paragraph (c) says Mueller cannot sue somebody in civil court without further authorization.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rnaa

My 15+ years in law enforcement in 2 different states tell me I am right.

Thanks for playing though.

Experience at getting things wrong doesn't mean anything.

Those 6 officers in Mesa that ambushed and beat the crap out of an unarmed guy just standing there minding his own business had lots of experience between them too - experience that led them to believe that video cameras don't work the way they actually do, for example.

You have +15 years LE experience? OK then, what does a law officer need in order to perform a legal traffic stop?

Hint: here is your post from earlier:

Finally, and pay attention - You CANNOT investigate a person in order to find a crime. You MUST have a crime to legally investigate a person.

So, what does a law officer need in order to perform a legal traffic stop?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rnaa

It is suppose to help people who dont bother to understand the rulings of the court and the underlying issues involved for their decisions and how its applied.

OK, got it... you want to take advantage of their laziness (as perceived by you) to 'help' them understand it by giving them the wrong information.

If people are so lazy ass stupid they refuse to understand the cases then they should not try and cite a case that doesnt support their argument only to scream when the are called out.

Yes, I see. You are purposely sowing incorrect information because lazy people (as perceived by you) deserve to be fooled.

a reply to: rnaa

Yup back to what you said and my response.

You cannot investigate a person to find a crime.

a reply to: rnaa

Claiming I am providing false information while putting forth none of your own supporting info is telling. When you figure out what you are talking about feel free to come back and join the conversation.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rnaa

Yup back to what you said and my response.

You cannot investigate a person to find a crime.

Not responsive to the question.

It is a simple question, trivial for someone with 15+ years of Law Enforcement experience.

What does a police officer need to make a legal traffic stop?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rnaa

Claiming I am providing false information while putting forth none of your own supporting info is telling. When you figure out what you are talking about feel free to come back and join the conversation.

You are incorrectly arguing meta-data now.

My "own supporting info" was in the text of the post in which I responded to your "just to make things clear". You got it wrong, I corrected you or made it clearer. Then you went all meta-data on us and claimed that you gave that false info in your 'just to make things clear' post because people were to lazy to look it up and they deserved what they got.

That is despicable and you know it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah okay. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about Manafort tampering with witnesses while out on bail. You know Mueller is requesting the judge in DC revoke his bail don't you?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Justice is blind.
Nixon was already told he couldn't.
Trump can't either.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Point out in the Constitution where it says he cant. 

How bout you point out where it says he can.

a reply to: rnaa

You are the one who keeps bouncing around like a ferret on crack.

A traffic stop requires reasonable suspicion a crime has occurred, like a moving violation or other traffic infraction. Since you seem to be heading in the wrong direction with your traffic stop question - reasonable suspicion means observed in that context. An officer has to observe the infraction in order to make the stop. The exceptions to that deal with reports by a 3rd party and only recently has scotus allowed officers to conduct a stop off of a 3rd party report without that party being required to identify themselves or signing / making a statement to the officer.

Traffic law is not the same as criminal law in the context your attempting to portray.

a reply to: rnaa

So just like your other comments in this thread and others you cant support your position and attack people for calling you out.

When you get around to being able to support your crap let us know.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah okay. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about Manafort tampering with witnesses while out on bail. You know Mueller is requesting the judge in DC revoke his bail don't you?

Yup which has nothing to do with Judge Ellis or the motions in front of him. Mueller would need to charge Manafort with witness tampering to get his bail revoked.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Justice is blind.
Nixon was already told he couldn't.
Trump can't either.

Not even close.

The DOJ adopted a guideline in 1974 with the opinion a President cant pardon himself because it would violate the precept a person cant be a judge of his own crimes. The part you seem to be incapable of understanding is a DOJ guideline / policy has no impact on a constitutional power assigned solely to the President.

Case in point is the DOJ guideline for pardons. Their policy says a person must be convicted of a federal crime and already served so many years of that crime to be eligible for a Presidential pardon. Once again that guideline has no impact on what the President can do when it comes to a pardon. This is evident in the recent pardons he issued since they werent in compliance with DOJ policy. The policies have no impact on Presidential pardon authority.

Pull your head out of the sand and learn would you please.