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

a reply to: rickymouse

I remembered the article as pardoned but it was actually aquitted. That was a long time ago that I read that, probably six years ago. But Clinton was guilty of lying under oath. Although from the Senate determination the lying by a president is not illegal.

No. The Senate found that what the House considered was an impeachable 'high crime (or) misdemeanor' was not in fact worthy of removing the President from office.

You can keep repeating that Clinton lied under oath to a Grand Jury, but in fact the question that led to the lie was improper. Grand Jury procedures are different than Court Rooms, but no Judge would have ever let that question pass. It had nothing to do with anything that the GJ was empaneled to investigate. Furthermore, it was the only thing that 4 years of investigations and many millions of dollars was ever able to dig up. Never-the-less, he was impeached and found NOT GUILTY. He was not found not guilty of lying under oath, he was found not guilty of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.

At the end of the day, the definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is left up to Congress, thus it is fundamentally a political, not a criminal, definition. Everyone recognized that the Clinton prosecution was political from go to whoa, and the Senate rejected the idea that a President should be impeached solely because he tried to hide an illicit affair.

On the other hand, obstruction of justice, taking emoluments (bribes), direct and willful violation of US election law - these are all recognizably, "in your face", non-politically motivated charges if there is evidence to support them. The House actually has more than enough to impeach already, especially if we are using the Clinton case as precedent. That it has not acted is proof that impeachment is a highly political process.

Muellar wants Trump to testify because he wants to ensure that the correct processes are seen to be followed. It took hours of testimony for Clinton to be badgered into his so-called lie, but Trump lies the way most people breathe, and there is no doubt what-so-ever that he will lie under oath. But he won't be impeached for lying, even if those lies will be a thousand times worse than Clinton's. He'll be impeached for obstruction, cover-ups, bribery, etc. The lies, and the evidence that he lied will prove the case in the Senate.

Of course, Trump could yet pull a Nixon (with that ego? Fat chance.).

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

Yeah chit chat is what the FBI does.

a reply to: DanDanDat


All in good time.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Gee that would look good for the president wouldn't it? What do you think that will do for the mid terms or worse yet his re-election?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Take your chances - and yet you peddle your TDS with less proof than what I just posted at you.

LOL

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

What is TDS?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

What is TDS?

It's a social psychological disease. Known as Trump derangement syndrome. The people who have it aren't aware of any symptoms, but it is glaringly obvious to everyone else around them who aren't victims of this mentally debilitating syndrome.
Everyone who is backing and pushing Mueller seems to have it and the proof for that is the fact that the Russian collusion investigation has failed to produce even a shred of evidence that Trump is guilty of election collusion with Russia.

It all began going into high gear when Hillary unexpectedly lost the election (not unexpectedly to Trump voters though), in a huge upset that dumbfounded Hillary's supporters, which has led the country to where we are today with the sham Mueller investigation that has gone nowhere except to waste taxpayer dollars.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Oh thanks so much.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Do you really think I'm at some risk because of that post?

originally posted by: Pyle
GOP already set precedent that a president can be subpoenaed and deposed. Now they are trying to say he cant? Hum double standard?

Uhm no they didnt.

If you are referring to Bill Clinton that was a civil case and the court clarified the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to actions taken prior to becoming President.

This is not a civil case, it is criminal.

a reply to: Pyle
Since you also invoked Clinton part of my response covers your comment.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Sounds like Nixon saying you can't subpoena my tapes.

If you read the decision you would notice the only reason Nixon's legal argument failed was not enough evidence was supplied by his lawyers to convince the court. Had they done a better job in their argument they would have been successful and the court noted that. They also left the door open for the same argument to be argued by future Presidents.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Or Clinton saying I don't have time to sit and answer questions.

A civil case where the courts said sovereign immunity does not apply to acts prior to being President. It is not applicable in this instance because the situation is criminal and not civil.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
And when the supreme court looked at the rule of law they said umm no the president isn't above the law.

Mississippi vs. Johnson says otherwise. A President can not be stopped from exercising his constitutional authority nor can he be charged, criminal or civil, for doing so. Clintons actions refined the ruling in Fitzgerald vs. Nixon for the civil side.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
This release is for his base again. And look. He was right. Hook line and sinker.

No its a valid legal argument the left is desperately wanting to ignore because it doesn't support their agenda.

Trump should seize the opportunity to speak with Mueller and exonerate himself, right? Isn't that what honest, innocent people do?

You all know he's a habitual liar, and beyond that, it seems to be pathological. And he's your president. Let him speak.
Let him show himself. See what you've elected, for better or for worse.

a reply to: angeldoll

In our system of jurisprudence a person is innocent until found guilty in a court of law. A person is not required to cooperate with an criminal investigation against himself.

Especially when that investigation is illegal to start with.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: angeldoll

In our system of jurisprudence a person is innocent until found guilty in a court of law. A person is not required to cooperate with an criminal investigation against himself.

Especially when that investigation is illegal to start with.

In our system of jurisprudence, this investigation is certainly not illegal.

Why don't you guys just admit it? It's not Mueller you fear, it's Trump.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It's a social psychological disease. Known as Trump derangement syndrome.

That imaginary syndrome sounds strikingly similar to the very real psychological condition known as SUTA.

a reply to: Liquesence

The thing is, we've already had enough plea deals and indictments to negate any notion of a "witch hunt".
It's been totally worth it, to uncover the criminals they have so far. The country was not in good hands.

a reply to: angeldoll

The thing is, we've already had enough plea deals and indictments to negate any notion of a "witch hunt".

As I have said many, many times. It's all very, very real.

The country was is not in good hands.

Fixed it for ya.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: angeldoll

In our system of jurisprudence a person is innocent until found guilty in a court of law. A person is not required to cooperate with an criminal investigation against himself.

Especially when that investigation is illegal to start with.

In our system of jurisprudence, this investigation is certainly not illegal.

Why don't you guys just admit it? It's not Mueller you fear, it's Trump.

Please educate yourself on the topic of special counsel.

26 CFR 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

Feel free to point out in DAG Rosensteins authorization letter the crime used to justify the special counsel appointment.


Now point out in the federal body of law (criminal) collusion.

The letter only authorizes investigations into the bogus Trump-Russia collusion or other crimes that arises from that investigation. Thus far every single person who has been indicted / plead guilty have been unrelated to Trump or Trump Russia collusion. Never mind the fact it is so far outside the SC jurisdiction its not even funny. Secondly some of those individuals already had open and then closed cases, like Manafort (DAG Rosenstein was the US attorney for his initial investigation where Rosenstein declined to prosecute him and sent an exoneration letter). The DOJ handed that closed case over when Mueller wanted it in violation of the SC statutes.

My fear is the left is so blind because of their hatred of Trump and their inability to accept Clinton lost because of her failing and not because of the excuses she has provided (totaling almost 20 different reasons now) that they are willing to shred the Constitution in order to effect a coup all because they dont like Trump or the fact the American people elected him.

What scares me are people, such as yourself, that refuses to see the danger in what the left is doing.

Finally and most importantly is how this started. It was not a criminal investigation. It was a counter intelligence investigation which has different rules and governing regulations - of which were violated via FISA omissions and perpetrating a fraud on the court and non compliance with the Woods protocol.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Liquesence

The thing is, we've already had enough plea deals and indictments to negate any notion of a "witch hunt".
It's been totally worth it, to uncover the criminals they have so far. The country was not in good hands.

Again educate yourself on the topic -
Everyone Mueller Has Charged in Russia Election Probe, All 22 of Them
* - Michael Flynn - False statements - currently under review by the federal judge. FBI cleared Flynn and currently the 302's submitted are under investigation for changes made at the insistence of McCabe and Sally Yates (acting AG at the time). Comey also got caught lying because he testified to Congress agents said Flynn was not lying to them. Talking to Russians during the transition is not illegal and had nothing to do with TRump Russia colusion.
* - Richard Pinedo - Identity Fraud
* - Alex van der Zwaan - lying to federal agents about a conversation with Gates regarding Ukraine.
* - Paul Manafort - lying to federal agents / financial crimes / FAR violation all from 2005. Currently Judge Ellis is reviewing the motion that the SC is acting outside of its jurisdiction. The SC got caught misleading the court by making claims that Rosenstein noted in a secret memo that expanded the SC jurisdiction to section B. When they were ordered to produce the unredacted memo they changed their story and said the authorization by Rosenstein was a verbal order.
* - Thirteen Russians and Three Russian entities - 2014 posed as US citizens to run political ads (BEFORE Trump was the nominee). Determined to havr no impact on the election or outcome and unrelated to Trump / Trump campaign.
* - Rick Gates - Lying to federal agents and conspiracy (financial crimes with Manafort from 2005).
* - George Papadopoulos - lying to federal agents

None of which have anything to do with Trump Russia collusion or any Trump involvement.

All Russians and a few of the others on the list have challenged their cases in court and so far are winning. Muellers team has committed Brady violations in many of those cases by refusing to turn over the evidence against the accused, as required by law.

In the 13 Russians / business cases they improperly served several of the individuals and named a business that does not exist. They have also failed to comply with Brady requirements by turning over evidence.

On the off chance you or others arent familiar with Brady it requires the prosecution to turn over all evidence / documents against the accused including any and all exculpatory evidence.

If the SC was on such firm footing why commit a violation that if sustained can result in the dismissal of charges with prejudice? Why the motions by the SC to delay several of the cases when they are the ones who brought the charges to begin with and why gave the judges thus far denied the SC request for continuances / delays?

In order for an investigation to be lawful a potential crime has to be present. You CANNOT investigate a person in search of a crime.

The legal argument provided by the SC is the DAG has the authority to grant the SC authority to investigate anything they wish. That legal argument violates the SC statute in addition to violating DOJ policies / procedures / guidelines.

Mueller, his staff and DAG Rosenstein all have conflict of interest in this case which are ignored, again violating the SC statute and DOJ polices.

Judge Ellis challenged the SC legal argument by noting no one in the federal government can have unfettered power answerable to no one and that is exactly the argument being argued by the SC.

Rosenstein authorized them to investigate whatever they want.

It does not work that way. Also by submitting official documents to the court claiming the title of US attorney's instead of special counsel they violated the appointment clause of the Constitution.