It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.
As for constitutional defenses arising from the President's status as the head of the Executive Branch, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these issues. We therefore examined those issues through the framework established by Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues. The Department of Justice and the President's personal counsel have recognized that the President is subject to statutes that prohibit obstruction of justice by bribing a witness or suborning perjury because that conduct does not implicate his constitutional authority. With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice .
Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers . The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regard less of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term "corruptly " sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of "corrupt" official action does not diminish the President's ability to exercise Article II powers. For example , the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment , avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary , a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President 's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties . The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President 's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Unlike in that situation, there is no proof trump had corrupt intent in any of his actions, nor did any of his actions impede the investigation.
The term "corruptly " sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.
I am not seeing anywhere that congress can bring criminal charges against a president.
They could go thru impeachment proceedings, but Mueller report is irrelvant to that; they could have had impeachment proceedings for any reason.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
The storm is gathering,
The Dems knew the collusion story was a lie
So did the intel community
Nice of you to admit what we all knew
originally posted by: Willtell
Unable to clear Trump of obstruction, Mueller details efforts by president to curtail investigation
Special counsel Robert Mueller was not able to clear President Donald Trump of obstructing justice in his nearly two-year investigation into foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election. "The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred," Mueller wrote in his report covering his wide-ranging probe into allegations of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia during the 2016 election and whether the president himself obstructed the inquiry. "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," the special counsel added.
Facts are facts and truth is truth
Trump is a criminal president. He’s illegitimate
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: links234
Nonetheless, he does not recomend impeachment as the poster I was replying to claims, nor does he claim that Tryump is guilty