The Robert Mueller Investigation

[CowboyFred 1151]

7 minutes ago, Chooky said:

Question for TwiceHorn and other lawyers:

Would it be a good defense to respond to every inquiry from prosecutors with "yeah, well so is your face" every time no matter the context?

I'm only a 2L but I am going to say no.  One of the main rules in "lawyering" is to kinda play nice with the other side and not be a dick.  There is always the possibility of working with/against that same prosecutor again in the future and there is no sense in burning bridges. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

5 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

I'm only a 2L but I am going to say no.  One of the main rules in "lawyering" is to kinda play nice with the other side and not be a dick.  There is always the possibility of working with/against that same prosecutor again in the future and there is no sense in burning bridges. 

Overruled!

[Chooky 13302]

But what if my style was to always wear a cowboy/gunslinger motif and say things like "take no prisoners" and "suck it, weenie boy" and I pantomime twirling a revolver and blowing the smoke off the barrel ever time I receive a favorable verdict? 

[Pescado_Rojo 19331]

7 minutes ago, Chooky said:

But what if my style was to always wear a cowboy/gunslinger motif and say things like "take no prisoners" and "suck it, weenie boy" and I pantomime twirling a revolver and blowing the smoke off the barrel ever time I receive a favorable verdict? 

Are you wearing a banana hammock? 

 

 

Sorry, just making sure I've got the full fantasy. 

[triplehorn 2664]

It's distinctly possible the above tweet isTrump revealing that the report is done.  Time and again that's how he rolls. 

Going with that assumption:

- Is Mueller or the AG the one to disclose the final report has been submitted?  If not publicly, then to Congress ?

- If it's the AG only, what, if any, recourse does Trump have to prevent the final Mueller report from leaving Barr's desk ? 

- If there is no recourse to prevent acknowledgement of the submission to at least Congress, how long could Barr sit on it ?

 

[jimmyjazz 45558]

3 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Are you wearing a banana hammock? 

Sorry, just making sure I've got the full fantasy. 

You have weird fantasies.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[retread 2951]

7 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Are you wearing a banana hammock? 

 Sorry, just making sure I've got the full fantasy. 

Add an occasional twerk thrown toward the prosecutor and you're going places.

Edited March 15, 2019 by retread

[TwiceHorn 31275]

7 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

It's distinctly possible the above tweet isTrump revealing that the report is done.  Time and again that's how he rolls. 

Going with that assumption:

- Is Mueller or the AG the one to disclose the final report has been submitted?  If not publicly, then to Congress ?

- If it's the AG only, what, if any, recourse does Trump have to prevent the final Mueller report from leaving Barr's desk ? 

- If there is no recourse to prevent acknowledgement of the submission to at least Congress, how long could Barr sit on it ?

 

On this, I think it's Barr/Rosenstein's call how much and when to release the report.

If it isn't released in its entirety, I think any interested member of the public could sue and if it werent under FOIA, it would completely resemble FOIA litigation.  Other than ongoing investigations or national security, I'm not sure what reasons Barr could successfully advance to keep it secret.

[Jatrain 288]

A little background on the current policy embodied in 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, which states: The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. October 16, 2000.
This was prepared by the OLC for the Clinton Administration.  The impeachment had concluded, as had the Starr investigation.  So, there was probably no "fear" at the time that Clinton would be indicted by anyone.  I think one thing that may have provoked this opinion was the expiration of the variously termed Independent Counsel or Special Prosecutor Act, under which Starr operated.
The opinion builds on a Department opinion from the Nixon era, 1973, that isn't separately designated an opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel, that reached the same conclusion.
As has been referenced a number of times on this thread, Starr obtained an opinion from Professor Ronald Rotunda that the President could be indicted.  I think part of the reason Starr sought that opinion was that he was operating under the Independent Counsel law, which did not exist in 1973 (and no longer exists).  That law was believed to change the ordinary dynamics between a President and his own executive department, the congress, and the judiciary, because all were involved in the appointment and supervision of the Independent Counsel.  Starr then believed that circumstances were different than when the 1973 opinion was rendered.  And, in fact, the Independent Counsel law was a principal factor guiding Rotunda's opinion that the President could be indicted.
So, the Rotunda opinion was never adopted or acted on by anyone.  It was not prepared by the OLC and thus never bound the DOJ.  It was premised on an Act of Congress that is no longer the law of the land.
Mueller is operating under DOJ regulations that have about the same force as the OLC opinions.  They don't "change anything" the way the Independent Counsel law changed everything with respect to special counsels.
He does I suppose have the option of seeking his own opinion.  HOWEVER, and I missed this before, in the final footnote 38, the OLC opinion states that: Permitting a prosecutor and grand jury to issue even a sealed indictment would allow them to take an unacceptable gamble with fundamental constitutional values.
So that's probably out.  Fuck.

Question as a noob on all of this....why does the opinion of this one guy who worked in the DOJ years ago matter so much? It’s not like it’s an actual law, correct? It hasn’t been litigated or is an opinion written by a judge? Why does one guy’s opinion carry so much weight?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[triplehorn 2664]

TH - Thanks for the response. 

If POTUS has the authority to fire the Special Counsel, perhaps it stands to reason POTUS could selectively quash the release of the SC report by the AG while not firing the SC proper.  

 

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by triplehorn

[Pescado_Rojo 19331]

30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You have weird fantasies.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

imgur>

[TwiceHorn 31275]

35 minutes ago, Jatrain said:

 

Question as a noob on all of this....why does the opinion of this one guy who worked in the DOJ years ago matter so much? It’s not like it’s an actual law, correct? It hasn’t been litigated or is an opinion written by a judge? Why does one guy’s opinion carry so much weight?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair question.  The opinion in question, as noted above, was prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel, which is a department within the DOJ that is charged with advising the President and executive branch agencies, including the DOJ as to matters of policy and answering questions like "can we do this?" or "Is it legal if we do this?"  It wasn't "one guy" (although I am sure there was a principle author), https://www.justice.gov/olc

Note that OLC is not the President's personal lawyer, that's the White House Counsel.  OLC advises the "office of the President."

The opinions have the force of law within the various agencies in question, just as do the more "legislatively enacted" Code of Federal Regulations (where the Special Counsel rules are found, for example).  There is nothing that says the OLC can't reverse course and change its opinion.  But, the OLC and entire DOJ operate in a common-law country where precedent and stare decisis are solemn principles, so that won't be undertaken lightly.

And, while I don't think the OLC expressly does the bidding of any individual president, being part of an executive agency itself, it isn't going to buck the powers that be too hard.

Edited March 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Abramson on things still outstanding and why he doesn't  think Mueller is done yet. It's long, but worth reading. I'm only going to post the first few. 

Still a lot of unfinished business. I don't think Mueller is going to have time to finish all of these before he fires off a big salvo though. This is still years worth of work in a normal, functional system. It will be far too late, if it isn't already. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45495]

Serious question: do you think Mueller has a food taster at this point?  I'd think he'd have to.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Well, I don’t know about food taster but with the type of people that rabidly support Trump I sure hope he has a bulletproof vest and armored car and bodyguards.

[TwiceHorn 31275]

1 hour ago, Chooky said:

Question for TwiceHorn and other lawyers:

Would it be a good defense to respond to every inquiry from prosecutors with "yeah, well so is your face" every time no matter the context?

As long as you throw in some "I know you are, but what am I" and "when monkeys fly out my butt," then yeah, that's totally viable.  Also maybe "rhymes with dooky."

Edited March 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 45558]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As long as you throw in some "I know you are, but what am I" and "when monkeys fly out my butt," then yeah, that's totally viable.  Also maybe "rhymes with dooky."

"I probated your mom last night."

[Gil Bang 25898]

The “report” may indeed somehow be kept from the public, but not the findings. Schiff would subpoena Mueller in a NY minute.

[triplehorn 2664]

I may have found the answer to my own question about whether Trump could quash the Mueller report without firing the SC proper.

I found this interesting angle on the Spectator USA (conservative) site:

 Can you indict a sitting president? The lawyers disagree

 

"He [Rudy G] said that Department of Justice policy didn’t allow a prosecutor to indict a president. The Special Counsel’s office had tried to be ‘coy’ about that, he said, but finally they’d called him to say: ‘Of course, we’re bound by Justice Department policies.’

The Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, was asked about this and said he wouldn’t answer ‘in the context of any current matters’ but when the issue had come up ‘in the past’ the DoJ had said that a sitting president could not be indicted. Case closed? Not quite. The words ‘in the past’ are the important ones in Rosenstein’s statement. And Mueller’s staff seem to have been careful to tell Giuliani only that they would follow DoJ policy. Policy can be changed. Mueller could even ignore it.

He might do just that, according to the lawyer who drafted the Special Counsel regulations, Neal Katyal, President Obama’s Solicitor General. Katyal wrote an op-ed for the New York Times last year saying: ‘The regulations contemplate that a special counsel could, in appropriate circumstances, depart from Justice Department policy.’ In fact, he went on, ‘the regulations put a thumb on the scale in favor of having Mr Mueller seek an indictment if he finds evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Mr Trump.’ Why? The reasons are both legal and tactical.

The tactical reason is that the regulations say Mueller would have to give a detailed final report to Congress if he were overruled by the Attorney General on any substantive issue. Let that sink in. Mueller’s means of making sure his report isn’t buried would be to ask for something he knows the Attorney General, William Barr, can’t give – say a Presidential indictment. Asha Rangappa, a former FBI agent, wrote in the Washington Post that this was the only way to guarantee the report was made public. The Attorney General refusing to allow Mueller to indict the president ‘would automatically trigger the reporting requirement to Congress.’

The legal reason Mueller might recommend indicting the president would be to stop the statute of limitations running out while Trump remains in office. 

[...]

If President Trump were indicted, the Supreme Court would have to rule whether or not that was constitutional. (For that reason alone, it’s hard to imagine that Trump could be secretly ‘indicted under seal’.) 

cont."

 

fuck yes.

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45558]

Wait . . . so if Mueller asks Barr for permission to indict Trump, and Barr refuses, Mueller has to report his findings in detail to Congress?

If that's true, it would cause a shitstorm of epic proportions.  Barr would have no good choice.

[triplehorn 2664]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait . . . so if Mueller asks Barr for permission to indict Trump, and Barr refuses, Mueller has to report his findings in detail to Congress?

If that's true, it would cause a shitstorm of epic proportions.  Barr would have no good choice.

you got it.  

indict.

[jimmyjazz 45558]

4 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

you got it.  

indict.

If what you posted is correct, there's almost no downside, unless one thinks it's just better to leg things out until the primaries.

[TwiceHorn 31275]

It's not correct.

Quote

 

§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -

(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;

(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and

(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.

(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.

(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.

 

It says the report, or the report to Congress, made by the AG, shall include instances where the AG overruled the Special Counsel.

For all that, yes, I think Mueller could indict Trump, disobeying the policy, which might trigger his termination as Special Counsel, but not the termination of the investigation.  But I also think he's too much of a company man to do that.  I don't doubt that, if the evidence supports it, he will plainly state that there is probable cause to believe the President committed the offenses of ______________________________________, with greater detail than any indictment and further explain that he declined to indict and prosecute based on 24 Op. O.L.C. 222.

Edited March 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31275]

Perhaps some of the quoted article comes from this, which both aids and undermines the argument:

Quote

 

§ 600.7 Conduct and accountability.

(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.

(b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in § 600.9(a)(3).

(c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice. Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

 

That does seem to indicate that the AG has an obligation to report to Congress actions overruled, but it uses the section quoted above, which indicates that that obligation arises only at the conclusion of the investigation.

Edited March 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[triplehorn 2664]

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's not correct.

It says the report, or the report to Congress, made by the AG, shall include instances where the AG overruled the Special Counsel.

The wrinkle appears to be that for the duration of an ongoing SC investigation, the AG is not obligated to report to Congress.  Mueller would have to close shop to force the AG to report to Congress including detailed instances where the AG overruled the SC.  That would be a weird limbo and provides incentive for Mueller to farm out other tranches of his investigation so that he can issue a report at conclusion.  So the timing of conclusion appears to be tied to revelation wrt any POTUS indictment.  That's a little at odds with earlier posts today to not conflate "the report" with "indictments."  But as it relates to POTUS indictments and Congressional notification, they are linked.

Imagine Mueller perp walking Ivanka, Jared, DonJr, Eric while Donald tries to not fire Mueller to hide his own indictment from Nadler.

The Spectator article also references SCOTUS involvement.  Do the SC regs address instances of conflict that call for a SCOTUS ruling ?

 

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by triplehorn

[TwiceHorn 31275]

Also, note an article at LawFare by Walter Dellinger, Clinton's Solicitor General.  https://www.lawfareblog.com/indicting-president-not-foreclosed-complex-history The article is a bit disingenuous in that it places two OLC opinions on equal footing with Rotunda's opinion and two advocacy documents (a court brief and an internal memo of the Jaworksi special counsel team).  The OLC documents are the only ones that pretend to reflect official policy.  The others are just, like, opinions, man and the dubious applicablity of the Rotuna opinion has been explained.  It appears that Rotunda himself admitted that without an Independent Counsel statute similar to the one he analyzed, his opinion is n/a.

There seem to be two ways to get the issue before the Supreme Court.  One is to actually indict the President, which doesn't look like it's happening anytime soon.  The other would be for Congress to specifically authorize indictment of the President.  That would overrule the policy of the DOJ, but might still require indicting the President to create standing to challenge the statute and the practice itself.

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[notre dame joe 172]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

The “report” may indeed somehow be kept from the public, but not the findings. Schiff would subpoena Mueller in a NY minute.

ssshhh   

 

We have a few more weeks of pretending that they are doing a great thing by publishing the report.

[triplehorn 2664]

45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

For all that, yes, I think Mueller could indict Trump, disobeying the policy, which might trigger his termination as Special Counsel, but not the termination of the investigation.  But I also think he's too much of a company man to do that. 

On one hand company man, on the other, Marine.  

If there is evidence Trump has committed and continues to commit multiple serious crimes against the United States, I don't think Mueller withholds indictment of POTUS.  It's his conclusion to make, but not his outcome to determine.  It's his veritable duty to indict POTUS if the evidence supports it.

Edited March 15, 2019 by triplehorn

[TwiceHorn 31275]

Spitballing a little further, the regs quoted above would seem to require removal of Mueller if he voilated DOJ policy, which would trigger an immediate duty to report that to Congress.  Thus, if he indicted, he would probably be removed and Congress informed immediately.  To what end or effect, I am not sure.

[TwiceHorn 31275]

7 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

On one hand company man, on the other, Marine.  

If there is evidence Trump has committed and continues to commit multiple serious crimes against the United States, I don't think Mueller withholds indictment of POTUS.  It's his conclusion to make, but not his outcome to determine.  It's his veritable duty to indict POTUS if the evidence supports it.

By the same token, he was a mere Captain in the Corps and quite familiar, I'm sure, with following all lawful orders.  He can disagree with the policy yet still feel compelled to obey it, because it is a lawful order, perhaps about which reasonable minds could disagree, but lawful nonetheless and "above his paygrade."

I consider Marines, especially lower grade officers and enlisted, to be the ultimate company men.

Edited March 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Again, the person to watch is Rod Rosenstein.

According to earlier reporting, today was supposed to be his last day.

Clearly, it wasn’t.

[TwiceHorn 31275]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Again, the person to watch is Rod Rosenstein.

According to earlier reporting, today was supposed to be his last day.

Clearly, it wasn’t.

Because Barr is not recused, does Rosenstein still retain his role over Mueller?  I don't recall reading anything about that.

[triplehorn 2664]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

By the same token, he was a mere Captain in the Corps and quite familiar, I'm sure, with following all lawful orders.  He can disagree with the policy yet still feel compelled to obey it, because it is a lawful order, perhaps about which reasonable minds could disagree, but lawful nonetheless and "above his paygrade."

I consider Marines, especially lower grade officers and enlisted, to be the ultimate company men.

I understand, and it very well may be how it plays out.  My ultimate concern is the withholding of evidence that could lead to impeachment and conviction if it exists.  

To the extent that, as you say "I don't doubt that, if the evidence supports it, he will plainly state that there is probable cause to believe the President committed the offenses of ______________________________________, with greater detail than any indictment and further explain that he declined to indict and prosecute based on 24 Op. O.L.C. 222," leads to a full accounting of that evidence in a report to Congress at termination, I have no issues.  If by Mueller NOT indicting POTUS, it leads to the evidence getting buried at DOJ and not finding its way to Congress, then I would hope he indicts and lets those "above his pay grade" sort it out.

[notre dame joe 172]

54 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 he will plainly state that there is probable cause to believe the President committed 

If anyone's taking bets I say he'll use weasel words that allow anyone to believe his current opinion.

[TwiceHorn 31275]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

I understand, and it very well may be how it plays out.  My ultimate concern is the withholding of evidence that could lead to impeachment and conviction if it exists.  

To the extent that, as you say "I don't doubt that, if the evidence supports it, he will plainly state that there is probable cause to believe the President committed the offenses of ______________________________________, with greater detail than any indictment and further explain that he declined to indict and prosecute based on 24 Op. O.L.C. 222," leads to a full accounting of that evidence in a report to Congress at termination, I have no issues.  If by Mueller NOT indicting POTUS, it leads to the evidence getting buried at DOJ and not finding its way to Congress, then I would hope he indicts and lets those "above his pay grade" sort it out.

I'm not saying he's not going to say what he knows/believes/the evidence shows, I just say he's not going to file a piece of paper in the US District Court with Trump's name on it.  I think the level of detail in the report could be far more damaging than the contents of an indictment, short of the legal effect, and provided anyone reads it.

Nothing I say about indictments pertain to anything but an actual indictment.  I don't believe Mueller will withhold any evidence or pull any punches.  He is foreclosed by policy from indicting the President, so he won't. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31275]

40 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

If anyone's taking bets I say he'll use weasel words that allow anyone to believe his current opinion.

I don't believe that for a femtosecond.

[bolverk 29399]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't believe that for a femtosecond.

Forget it. He's trolling and has no interest in a meaningful discussion.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Forget it. He's trolling and has no interest in a meaningful discussion.

Meaningful discussion? Are you kidding? In 348 pages you haven't progressed beyond Mueller Fan Fiction. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[bolverk 29399]

3 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Meaningful discussion? Are you kidding? In 348 pages you haven't progressed past Mueller Fan Fiction. 

[notre dame joe 172]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't believe that for a femtosecond.

Can we make a steno pad separating the weasel from the criminal?

[triplehorn 2664]

18 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Again, the person to watch is Rod Rosenstein.

According to earlier reporting, today was supposed to be his last day.

Clearly, it wasn’t.

Yep, keep an eye on Rosenstein.  I think Rosenstein has given clues about prosecutorial "state of mind" and the potential for something unusual or unorthodox wrt to approaching POTUS and criminality.  TwiceHorn has made a good case for Mueller being the consummate "company man," while I focus on him as someone who is capable of independent acts of valor amidst chaos (Marine).  I think Mueller is more of a hybrid - he will find new, potentially unorthodox ways of accomplishing goals while operating within rules and guidelines.

With that in mind, and understanding that Rosenstein and Mueller have been an unflappable combination throughout the Trump/Russia investigation, I think you get some clues about how flexible and creative they can be from a couple examples:

 

Previous link on indicting a sitting POTUS:

"He said that Department of Justice policy didn’t allow a prosecutor to indict a president. The Special Counsel’s office had tried to be ‘coy’ about that, he said, but finally they’d called him to say: ‘Of course, we’re bound by Justice Department policies.’

The Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, was asked about this and said he wouldn’t answer ‘in the context of any current matters’ but when the issue had come up ‘in the past’ the DoJ had said that a sitting president could not be indicted. Case closed? Not quite. The words ‘in the past’ are the important ones in Rosenstein’s statement. And Mueller’s staff seem to have been careful to tell Giuliani only that they would follow DoJ policy. Policy can be changed. Mueller could even ignore it."

--> Rosenstein appears to disengage from the past as precedent.  Different time, different circumstances.

 

As another example just this week, note the parable and the words Rosenstein uses during investiture to new immigration judges:

Spoiler

 

 

"The moral is that the solutions of the past are not necessarily the right solutions today.  Circumstances change.  Sometimes we need to reconsider assumptions and realign our practices to achieve our goals.

..."Adapt or Die."  Some of the best ideas to enhance efficiency come from relatively new employees who are not accustomed to existing bureaucratic rules."

 

I think the above examples from Rosenstein suggest a historic surprise could be in the making.

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by triplehorn

[horncyclist 1386]

Question: Has the criminality of the President's conduct while in office ever risen to that Trump is apparently responsible for? If a President murdered someone, would they be indicted? I guess you could say that even there, impeachment is a solution, but what if the evidence of the murder isn't rock solid but enough to reach beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean, enough doubt exists where half of a corrupt Senate would turn the other way.  What then? The President is not and should not be above the law. There has to be a situation where indictment is appropriate. Maybe this is it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

7 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Yep, keep an eye on Rosenstein.  I think Rosenstein has given clues about prosecutorial "state of mind" and the potential for something unusual or unorthodox wrt to approaching POTUS and criminality.  TwiceHorn has made a good case for Mueller being the consummate "company man," while I focus on him as someone who is capable of independent acts of valor amidst chaos (Marine).  I think Mueller is more of a hybrid - he will find new, potentially unorthodox ways of accomplishing goals while operating within rules and guidelines.

I see Rosenstein and Mueller as one apparatus closely linked working in tandem, bouncing ideas off each other, and contingency planning for every scenario.  These two are the chess players in Trump’s village of idiots.  The question is what do they prioritize more: the rule of law, national security, or the public interest? 

How significantly they value those three things independently, which are all intertwined, will determine how this plays out because compromises are going to have to be made to maintain true faith and allegiance to all three, which sucks. 

[David Dennison 18657]

3 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Question: Has the criminality of the President's conduct while in office ever risen to that Trump is apparently responsible for? If a President murdered someone, would they be indicted? I guess you could say that even there, impeachment is a solution, but what if the evidence of the murder isn't rock solid but enough to reach beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean, enough doubt exists where half of a corrupt Senate would turn the other way.  What then? The President is not and should not be above the law. There has to be a situation where indictment is appropriate. Maybe this is it.

I don't believe there is anything preventing a state from indicting a sitting president, so if he committed murder or any other common law crime usually adjudicated in a state court, he would probably be indicted and prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed.

[horncyclist 1386]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I don't believe there is anything preventing a state from indicting a sitting president, so if he committed murder or any other common law crime usually adjudicated in a state court, he would probably be indicted and prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed.

Assume it's on federal land, so federal criminal law would apply. Say Melania dies in the Whitehouse under suspicious circumstances and the Dotard is the likely suspect. 

[TwiceHorn 31275]

It is generally believed that the Supremacy Clause would ultimately prevent a state indictment of the sitting President.

However, that belief/opinion is probably not made the policy of any state Attorney General or prosecuting attorney, so the path to "giving it a go" is much easier for a state authority.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

2 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Assume it's on federal land, so federal criminal law would apply. Say Melania dies in the Whitehouse under suspicious circumstances and the Dotard is the likely suspect. 

Let’s say there was direct video/audio evidence and eye witnesses to Trump committing the murder. 

[TwiceHorn 31275]

3 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Assume it's on federal land, so federal criminal law would apply. Say Melania dies in the Whitehouse under suspicious circumstances and the Dotard is the likely suspect. 

The gravity of the crime does not affect the analysis, either way.

[David Dennison 18657]

5 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Assume it's on federal land, so federal criminal law would apply. Say Melania dies in the Whitehouse under suspicious circumstances and the Dotard is the likely suspect. 

I would hope, in that instance, DOJ would disregard a non-binding legal memorandum and indict the president if facts warrant it.

There's nothing in the law that says a sitting president cannot be indicted. It's just DOJ policy.

[triplehorn 2664]

44 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I see Rosenstein and Mueller as one apparatus closely linked working in tandem, bouncing ideas off each other, and contingency planning for every scenario.  These two are the chess players in Trump’s village of idiots.  The question is what do they prioritize more: the rule of law, national security, or the public interest? 

How significantly they value those three things independently, which are all intertwined, will determine how this plays out because compromises are going to have to be made to maintain true faith and allegiance to all three, which sucks. 

The point about Rosenstein I'm illustrating is that he is open to and actively thinking outside of past convention while remaining within the law.  I do not doubt that Mueller and Rosenstein have recognized this need from the start.

I'm also reminded of McCabe's interview with Margaret Hoover on PBS Firing Line:

 

Spoiler

 

 

When you're operating in a realm resembling a scene from Inception, you have to expand how laws and procedures function to achieve your goal.  Rosenstein is signaling that, and Mueller has the chops.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by triplehorn