Anyone Read, or Reading, Mueller's Report?
-
Bookfan
- For the Love of Pigs
I just saw this:
https://www.justsecurity.org/65863/expert-summaries-of-muell ... Introduction
It might make it easier to get through. The editors who I'm familiar with are top notch. I'm not worried about distortion.
https://www.justsecurity.org/65863/expert-summaries-of-muell ... Introduction
It might make it easier to get through. The editors who I'm familiar with are top notch. I'm not worried about distortion.
Regardless of Trump, although he is relevant, a point of constitutional protocol that just seems incredible to be interpreted the way it's being interpreted:
"The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, indicating that criminal charges against Trump would be unlikely", according to legal experts.
Rationale: In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him. “The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.
OK wait a darn minute here. I have sat on a Grand Jury, It was one of the best experiences of my life. I learned so much about the criminal aspect of the constitution and why we do the things we do. The whole point of True Bill / No Bill by a Grand Jury is so that one person or group can't target another because of political, religious, social etc beliefs and tie them up in Criminal Legal Proceedings. To get and indictment, you need a crime with evidence pointing to the person to be indicted. Now it's not perfect, we all know that. The term you can indict a ham sandwich although not really true makes a point for debate.
There is absolutely no reason the president should be above the Grand Jury process. The Grand Jury in our Constitution is the real omnipotent group of the whole shooting match, as it was intended by the Framers, with good reason. The power should never not be in the hands of the people
The record shows the framers were anxious regarding their work on the Grand Jury process and did indeed understood it was a tad incomplete. However, they gave us the tools to change what they had given and what they hadn't given us, because they were brilliant and without ego (at least for the authoring of the Constitution time) and understood several things
1) they had to complete the damn document at some point and couldn't debate forever and 2) they most clearly understand their time would be different from future generations in ways they could not predict. NRA nuts also take notice of this.
"The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, indicating that criminal charges against Trump would be unlikely", according to legal experts.
Rationale: In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him. “The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.
OK wait a darn minute here. I have sat on a Grand Jury, It was one of the best experiences of my life. I learned so much about the criminal aspect of the constitution and why we do the things we do. The whole point of True Bill / No Bill by a Grand Jury is so that one person or group can't target another because of political, religious, social etc beliefs and tie them up in Criminal Legal Proceedings. To get and indictment, you need a crime with evidence pointing to the person to be indicted. Now it's not perfect, we all know that. The term you can indict a ham sandwich although not really true makes a point for debate.
There is absolutely no reason the president should be above the Grand Jury process. The Grand Jury in our Constitution is the real omnipotent group of the whole shooting match, as it was intended by the Framers, with good reason. The power should never not be in the hands of the people
The record shows the framers were anxious regarding their work on the Grand Jury process and did indeed understood it was a tad incomplete. However, they gave us the tools to change what they had given and what they hadn't given us, because they were brilliant and without ego (at least for the authoring of the Constitution time) and understood several things
1) they had to complete the damn document at some point and couldn't debate forever and 2) they most clearly understand their time would be different from future generations in ways they could not predict. NRA nuts also take notice of this.
-
Lynx
- RESIST
"The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, indicating that criminal charges against Trump would be unlikely", according to legal experts.
That's not entirely true. It is being pushed by the current toady in charge of the Justice dept, but it is not clear. Other legal experts dispute it.
Here's commentary by a recognized scholar, lawyer, and professor focusing on American constitutional law:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president
That's not entirely true. It is being pushed by the current toady in charge of the Justice dept, but it is not clear. Other legal experts dispute it.
Here's commentary by a recognized scholar, lawyer, and professor focusing on American constitutional law:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president
-
Bookfan
- For the Love of Pigs
"current toady" ha!
I haven't read your article yet but from following Tribe's twitter feed, I know his opinion on this.
And the opinion of a constitutional lawyer is important here because of the situation GPIG refers to relating to Nixon. "The Justice Department adopted in an internal memo" - that hardly seems settled law. I also recall Rachel Maddow going into great detail about this & I forgot how, but somehow involved Spiro Agnew (who was a real crook) & keeping him from succeeding Nixon as pres. It was decided on the specific situation.
From the organization that brought us the summarized Mueller Report I linked to above:
"Just Security has compiled significant documents in Congress’s various Russia investigations dating back to the 2016 election cycle. This collection seeks to include significant original source materials including letters, subpoenas..."
https://www.justsecurity.org/62240/congressional-russia-investigations-document-clearinghouse/
I found this on:
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw
I haven't read your article yet but from following Tribe's twitter feed, I know his opinion on this.
And the opinion of a constitutional lawyer is important here because of the situation GPIG refers to relating to Nixon. "The Justice Department adopted in an internal memo" - that hardly seems settled law. I also recall Rachel Maddow going into great detail about this & I forgot how, but somehow involved Spiro Agnew (who was a real crook) & keeping him from succeeding Nixon as pres. It was decided on the specific situation.
From the organization that brought us the summarized Mueller Report I linked to above:
"Just Security has compiled significant documents in Congress’s various Russia investigations dating back to the 2016 election cycle. This collection seeks to include significant original source materials including letters, subpoenas..."
https://www.justsecurity.org/62240/congressional-russia-investigations-document-clearinghouse/
I found this on:
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw