Bob Mueller should challenge the Supreme Court by indicting Donald J Trump...

[kentuck]

The Supreme Court has never ruled that a sitting President can be indicted. Of course, the seriousness of crimes by a President have been very rare. The last President to come close to indictable crimes was Richard Nixon, although many would argue that George W Bush would also qualify. Nixon was an "un-indicted co-conspirator" who was pardoned by Gerald Ford and the Supreme Court was never given the opportunity to rule on the matter.

But, if Robert Mueller has evidence of money laundering and numerous high crimes and misdemeanors, he should indict Donald Trump, just as if he were another American citizen. The Supreme Court should have to rule on it. It would be a precedent, but a much-needed one. The rule of law should be that no man is above the law, including the President of the United States.

Bob Mueller would go down in history if he were to indict Donald Trump. The Supreme Court should be forced into making a decision on the question: Can a sitting President be indicted?

Donald Trump has earned the right to be indicted. He is a criminal. He has broken the laws of this country and has flaunted his wealth to escape any punishment for his entire life. Our justice system needs repair and this would be an excellent start, in my opinion.

[Little Star]

1. Hear, hear!!!!!!!!!!

[Freethinker65]

2. That is always a possibility

[honest.abe]

3. I think he will.

And I also think the SCOTUS will rule in favor of Mueller.

[Texin]

24. Well, there are folks from within the Justice Dept (who say otherwise).

I've heard them opine on TRMS, and the various other MSNBC shows, and many if not most say they believe Mueller thinks that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

I don't know one way or the other, but many of these individuals have worked with Mueller within the FBI and before that, and they don't seem to be convinced that this is what his strategy is. I think that the current SCOTUS might be split decision if decided before Kavanaugh can be rammed through. It's also not inconceivable that Kavanaugh, if appointed, might recuse himself in order to quell any charges that he had a conflict of interest in participating. But that and his stance on abortion and for other right wing American oligarchs, etc., is the reason Shitler/McConnell want to ram this through.

[honest.abe]

32. Yes, but..

Even if Mueller did acknowledge that as special counsel he cannot indict the president, as Giuliani claims, that is not definitive. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein may give him permission to override that limit.

The special counsel regulations and the authority Rosenstein enjoys as acting attorney general over this matter allow him to make that decision. Because of the legal infirmities of the OLC opinions we have described, that outcome cannot be considered off the table. Then it would be for the courts to resolve, and as we have shown, they have been hostile to similar presidential claims.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/24/donald-trump-not-above-law-sitting-president-can-indicted-column/634725002/

[lagomorph777]

4. The conventional wisdom that you can't do it is based on DOJ policy;

not statute and not Constitutional law. There is zero support, in the text of the Constitution, for Leon Jaworsky's politically expedient opinion during the Nixon era. If Trump were to take an indictment to the Supreme Court and claim it's invalid because he's a sitting President, he'd lose.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Some try to claim that the language above implies that an Impeachment conviction is a pre-requisite to legal indictment. That's utter nonsense. The language above is inclusive, not exclusive; it simply says that the political process of Impeachment is completely separate and independent from the legal process of indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment.

[kentuck]

5. Excellent point!

I have never heard it explained in such a way before.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. The Constitution is whatever a majority of SCOTUS jurors say it is, at any given period of time.

[lagomorph777]

12. Fair point. Hence the Kavanaugh nomination. Kavanaugh will do whatever the GOP

tells him to do.

[Duppers]

60. Indeed excellent. That's a *keeper reference.*

TY. 🙏

[BSdetect]

6. We have never had such a criminal as POTUS - even Nixon.

He must be dealt with asap.

[BigmanPigman]

19. We must do it NOW before KAVANAUGH has a chance

to block it.

[ffr]

7. I'm betting Mueller has such evidence and is working on proving a water tight case.

I'd love for him to take it to its logical conclusion and save the republic.

[Thrill]

8. Does anyone know if it's possible Mueller

Has already went to a Supreme Court Justice to get some kind of protection from getting fired? Is there anything one of them could do to protect his work?

[lagomorph777]

13. There's no process like that.

[bucolic_frolic]

69. I would bet that has been discussed

Trump firing the prosecutor investigating him would be Trump acting as the judge in his own case. Has to raise questions that go to the very heart of a republic founded on social contract theory and the consent of the governed. If allowed to stand it would be the monarchy the Founding generation fought a protracted war of rebellion to escape.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I was thinking about that this morning.

Mueller can't act without Rosenstein's approval.

[zipplewrath]

10. It's not the SC

The challenge would be to Rosenstein. Mueller can't issue an indictment in violation of Justice Department rules. It would be the basis for Ron to dismiss him. He needs to GO to Rosenstein and get him to approve it. That will mean that Rosenstein will get fired. Alternately, they'd have to get Sessions to change the rules, and that would get Jeff fired.

At the end of the day, Congress will have to act. Anyone wanna take bets on if they do?

[marylandblue]

15. It's not DOJ "policy" it's an Office of Legal Counsel opinion

Rosenstein can form his own opinion and act accordingly. Likely he direct Mueller to prepare a brief justifying the opinion. Like all grand jury proceedings, it will be in secret, so Trump will already be indicted before anyone can stop it.

[zipplewrath]

30. Without Sessions approval

I'm dubious that Sessions would see this decision to be within Rosenstein's authority.

[marylandblue]

33. Sessions is recused, he gets no information and has no right to interfere

[zipplewrath]

37. In issues associated with Russia

He isn't recused from how the JD operates. At best Rosenstein could somehow try to suggest that there was an exception here, or something outside of the original opinion's consideration. I'm dubious he could find that.

[marylandblue]

40. This IS about Russia nt

[zipplewrath]

44. It's about DoJ policies

Ron can't promote people who are working the case. He can't hand out raises. At the very least he'd have to follow the very same process Sessions would follow if Sessions was looking into changing the departments position on this.

[marylandblue]

50. I just looked at the OLC opinion

It is framed as a legal opinion. It does not actually prohibit DOJ from indicting the President. It's just an opinion that the courts would quash it.

It should be noted here that both Jaworski and Starr concluded they could indict the President. They chose not to, but they developed their own opinions and didn't feel bound by OLC.

Finally, suppose Rosenstein does authorize an indictment. Once the indictment is handed down, it will be in the hands of the courts, not DOJ. The court could say it must be allowed to rule and DOJ can't drop it.

[zipplewrath]

54. I will say

It would be interesting if a Grand Jury tried to indict Trump without Mueller asking. Not sure how'd that work, but it could make things quite interesting.

The issue however isn't whether Mueller can "legally" indict Trump, it's whether Sessions would judge himself authorized to fire Rosenstein if he authorized it. I'd suspect he would. If he didn't authorize it, and he also doesn't remove Mueller, I suspect that Sessions would still judge that he could now remove Rosenstein.

[marylandblue]

58. I believe the special counsel has to sign the indictment.

So Mueller can block it. That actually happened in Watergate. Grand Jury issued the indictment, staff supported it, but Jaworski refused to sign.

[better]

46. Not just associated with Russia...

From the mouth of Sessions himself, in his statement on Recusal, published 2017-03-02...

Having concluded those meetings today, I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States

[zipplewrath]

49. Which wouldn't affect deciding about DoJ policies, positions and procedures.

None of that changes the reality that Rosenstein can't change DoJ policies and procedures unilaterally just because they will be used in Mueller's investigations.

[honest.abe]

51. I suspect Sessions hates Trump for all the vicious insults he's thrown at him.

I think in this case Sessions sides with Mueller and Rosenstein, for spite if nothing else.

[zipplewrath]

55. He'll get fired

That's occurred to me. I just presume that Trump would then fire him. HE'd then appoint an AG that would "withdraw" the indictment somehow.

[honest.abe]

57. Then all hell breaks loose.

Either way Trump is screwed.

[C_U_L8R]

76. No love lost between these two

Session could go scorched earth and change the rules... but we're not there yet. Sessions is likely profiting from the current state of things.

[GeorgeGist]

16. Rosenstein can approve, Sessions is recused.

[kentuck]

18. Of course, Sessions would only be recused if the crimes were related to Russian investigation

Sessions is still the Attorney General on all other matters, I would assume?

[better]

47. As I noted above in response to a similar position...

this is incorrect. Sessions' official statement includes the following:

"Having concluded those meetings today, I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States."

[kentuck]

52. Excellent point!

[zipplewrath]

28. Yes, and be fired

He can be fired for violating JD policy without authorization.

[luvtheGWN]

34. If Rosenstein were to be fired,

I'd say he should consider it a badge of honour.

[GeorgeGist]

14. Hear, hear!

[uponit7771]

17. Hmmm, if a sitting president can be sued and forced into civil trial proceedings why not criminal?

Seems like this is an already answered question no?

Regards

[Texin]

29. Well, it certainly happened to Bill Clinton (in the Paula Jones Matter).

[Maraya1969]

20. And aren't we missing one juror now?

[bdamomma]

21. K&R

nt

[DeminPennswoods]

22. These crimes are so serious and far-ranging,

I continue to think Mueller will ask for and get permission from DoJ to indict Trump. The Founders never envisioned a completely complicit Congress unwilling to exercise their constitutional role as a check on the executive. Since Congress won't do its job - impeachment - then the Courts must step in.

[lsewpershad]

23. Great idea.

but I'm not a lawyer.

[duforsure]

25. I agree

[Pepsidog]

26. He has time for rallies, golf, watching tv, and golf, so an indictment won't distract him.

At a young age we learn no one is above the law, even big, fat, old, orange and Cheeto looking presidents.

[Perseus]

27. Yes, he should be indicted and if there is anyone here in DU who knows

how to get in touch with Rachel Maddow, she needs to be told to stop saying that a "sitting president cannot be indicted", they need to stop saying that.

There is nothing in the law that protects a sitting president from indictment, that would make the position above the law, and there is no such thing as a king in the USA.

It makes me sick when Rachel and everyone on MSNBC repeats the stupidity that Muller cannot indict trump, there is nothing at all that prevents him from doing it. The fact that someone at the DOJ sometime ago set it as "internal policy", or as "DOJ practice" of not indicting a sitting president does not make it into law.

trump must be indicted, otherwise the next president can risk worst things than trump (I know, its difficult) because they know they can get away with it and that the worst that can happen to them is impeachment.

[Texin]

35. I agree that they need to stop parroting that.

It's based on the existing current DOJ policy and not on any settled precedent. I just don't know how or why this policy decision was ever made, and it would seem that it's far from "policy", when in the matter of Bill Clinton, he was sued in civil court. That said, the avenue used thereafter was the impeachment process.

[Ponietz]

31. If Treason Against the United States is charged, HELL YEAH!

[cab67]

36. two points:

1. Mueller is going to go down in history whether he indicts the shaved orangutan in the White House or not.

2. When this is all over, there should be some constitutional fixes to help make sure it never happens again. That means there should be amendments specifying that (a) presidents cannot pardon themselves and (b) presidents can be indicted when in office.

[Nasruddin]

59. Constitution

We need a financial disclosure requirement and some kind of third party
medical assessment. No oath of office until those are satisfied.
Really should happen before election, so voters can use the information.

I don't like to see detailed conditions in a constitution, it's a poor use
of such a document, but what can we do? We could specify congress
as being in charge of writing the law for this amendment.

We need to split the duties of the executive branch. It should not
be in charge of its own investigations, and should not have the ability
to hire and fire people who can investigate it. Then there is the problem
of oversight of this independent branch.

[Duppers]

78. ALL of the above.

Last edited Thu Aug 23, 2018, 04:41 AM - Edit history (1)

If federal employees have to be investigated by authorities as a condition for their federal jobs, why is there not the same prerequisite for any candidates for federal office?

They sit on committees that deal with top security matters for our country.

[Mr. Ected]

38. He is an unindicted co-conspirator in at least 2 felonies

That were perpetrated BEFORE he took the oath of office. Presidential protections should not exist for crimes conducted prior to the presidency. If nothing else, Mueller should be able to carve out an exception to the DOJ rule in that regard.

[dajoki]

39. How the President Can Be Prosecuted as a Criminal

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100211032288

[ScratchCat]

41. The funny part is

Trump gets to spend the remainder of his term knowing that as soon as he is no longer President, he can and will likely be charged with felonies. He is WAY past the point of asking for a deal where he resigns in lieu of not being prosecuted, imo.

[Duppers]

79. Very true. nt

[beachbum bob]

42. No Supreme Court has ever ruled that. It's a DOJ policy, which is NOT law

either

[ewagner]

43. A couple of thoughts:

First I, agree that strategically is would be wise for Mueller to instigate the case to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. That way he will be playing "offense" instead of "defense" when the issue reaches the breaking point. It would also muddy up the waters beautifully for the Kavenaugh nomination process. (e.g. could a newly seated Justice vote/opine on a case that was filed before he came onto the court?)

Next, there is an ambiguity of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the constitution. Making it a pure criminal case and limiting the argument to "is the President of the United States above the law?" Would be a wise and useful decision...

[kentuck]

45. Great strategic thinking !

[FakeNoose]

70. It seems to be rolling the dice though

There's no way to know for certain how SCOTUS would rule.

What if SCOTUS rules against indictment - that precedent would be set for all time. We can see the light at the end of the Trump tunnel now, why take a chance on a ruling that would make it truly impossible to EVER indict a sitting president?

I believe that if there ever were a prosecutor to take this to the Supreme Court, Mueller is the man to do it. But in this he would not be arguing whether someone is guilty or not guilty, he'd be arguing a politically-loaded question that's bound to set off a lot of trauma in the country.

The question is not "Is the POTUS above the law?" because we all know the answer to that. The question is "Can a sitting POTUS be indicted while in office?"

[ooky]

48. I absolutely agree with your thought process.

It makes complete sense.

Plus, Mueller has given Trump ample opportunity to sit with him and tell him all sides of his story, and instead, Trump has gone into the media with contemptable and arrogant tweets toward Mueller.

It could not be more clear this president is a criminal. I agree with indicting him now and let's settle the issue once and for all.

[stopbush]

53. Unfortunately, the present SCOTUS is not an impartial judicial body.

They are in large part a rubber stamp for Rs.

The timing of such an action by Mueller could easily result in a decision you may not like.

[honest.abe]

56. Their "better angels" may emerge in a case this important.

That's my view.

[WhiteTara]

61. Tea Pain noted that these crimes occurred BEFORE

he became president and they were also done to make him president.

[FakeNoose]

65. Obstruction of Justice happened after the inauguration

And it's provable by Cheeto's own words and tweets. The Lester Holt interview would be People's Exhibit #1.

[WhiteTara]

77. Campaign finance laws and conspiracy

to defraud the government were private citizen. This must be his Waterloo.

[Claritie Pixie]

62. Mueller could do that, but I now understand why he referred Cohen's case to SDNY.

As reported today, SDNY can indict Trump, based on Cohen’s carefully crafted statements under oath yesterday. There’s a reason Lanny Davis is Cohen’s attorney and sought advice from John Dean. Even though there was no cooperation language in Cohen’s plea, I believe he fully intends to destroy his former boss and has been cooperating. It’s rather delicious!

[honest.abe]

63. Can you post a link regarding the "SDNY can indict Trump"?

That sounds interesting. Thanks!

[Claritie Pixie]

72. Here's a couple of things...state prosecutors can indict too

The thing is, though, this has never been tested before. And some legal scholars, like Hofstra University’s Eric M. Freedman, have argued that rank-and-file prosecutors can indeed indict and prosecute the president. It might be difficult for, say, the deputy US attorney for Southern New York who prosecuted Cohen, Robert Khuzami, to test the president’s immunity by securing an indictment. Trump could simply dismiss Khuzami from their post (US Attorney Geoffrey Berman has already recused himself from the Cohen case).

But state and local prosecutors don’t serve at the president’s pleasure the way US attorneys do. They’re typically elected or appointed by state or local politicians. So if Trump were to, as he’s jokingly threatened in the past, “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody,” then New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. could indict him for assault or murder without fear of losing his job.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17766218/michael-cohen-guilty-plea-trump-impeached

https://mobile.twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1032248885345959937

[honest.abe]

74. Nice. That might be the ticket.

Thanks!

[LudwigPastorius]

64. Mueller, being a 'by the book' fellow, would likely run such a decision by...

the man overseeing his investigation, Deputy AG Rosenstein, per the Justice Departments U.S. Attorney's Manual.

Who knows what Rosenstein would do?

[Vinca]

66. I agree. No one should be above the law, particularly the person who broke the law to obtain

the position he's in. The notion this can't be done is ridiculous. What if Don threw his kid off the balcony and killed him? Of course he would be arrested.

[bucolic_frolic]

67. Some people believe that firing Mueller

will unseal the indictments

Dunno.

[yellowcanine]

68. Mueller is doing just fine. Let him be.

I am betting he has a plan for any Trump pardons as well. He is a pro.

[Tiggeroshii]

71. Only if there is no replacement for kennedy, he still resigns and the democrats take control of the

Otherwise that is some gnarly precedent we risk setting...

[H2O Man]

73. It's not Mr. Mueller's call.

That is a decision that only Rosenstein could make. Mr. Mueller could recommend it, but it is not his decision.

[kentuck]

75. True. If he decided that was something that needed to be done ...

...he would need the approval of Rosenstein.

[Duppers]

80. K & R