Monday, December 2, 2019
droberts
Robert Mueller informed the White House/Guiliani that they will not indict Trump because you cant indict a sitting president. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/rudy-giuliani-robert-mueller-indictment/index.html

So if they have the goods on him it will be up to the House once they get Mueller's report. Hopefully, that'll be after the midterms and Dems have taken back the House and could start impeachment process. Don't see the Repugs doing that.
"Where law ends tyranny begins"  John Locke
Locke defines tyranny as "the exercise of power beyond right." A just leader is bound by the laws of the legislative and works for the people, whereas a tyrant breaks the laws and acts on his own behalf

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing."  Edmund Burke
Quote 0 0
Ballhawk
If a sitting president cannot be indicted it makes meaningless the saying that all Americans are equal under the law.  It makes one person, the president, "above the law" at least in terms of indictments.  That seems to mean our only course for getting rid of Trump prior to the 2020 election is impeachment.  Possibly Mueller will present his case as one in which Donald Trump would have been indicted if he were not a sitting president.  If so, it should place a burden upon the House to produce a bill of impeachment.  If, for whatever reason, the House will not pass a bill of impeachment I foresee a massive disillusionment among American citizens, a sense that the Constitution and the government have failed them.  
Quote 0 0
droberts
I believe I read somewhere a long time ago, that a sitting president cannot be indicted because of a constitutional safeguard for the president from false allegations of treason, crimes, etc.  Like some person or country setting the president up for arrest etc.  He/she is not above the law. But because of Presidents position as leader of the country cannot be vulnerable to it and Congress would have to impeach first. House of Representatives with sole power of impeachment would file the articles of impeachment, Senate would hold trial and convict with 2/3 majority of votes and remove the president from office. Then the former president can be indicted, arrested and tried in a court of law.

Too bad the Constitution didn't safeguard us from or tell us what we can do if one party is the majority with total power and has run amok, other than elections to change that. Times are so different from when the Constitution was written we probably need more amendments or a rewrite.
"Where law ends tyranny begins"  John Locke
Locke defines tyranny as "the exercise of power beyond right." A just leader is bound by the laws of the legislative and works for the people, whereas a tyrant breaks the laws and acts on his own behalf

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing."  Edmund Burke
Quote 0 0
Ballhawk
Thanks to droberts for clarification and background on the question of indictment of a sitting president.  Good point that the Constitution gives us no sure remedy (other than eventually voting them out of office) when one Party in the House is partisan to the extent of ignoring the harmful deeds of our current President.  It is possible that some of the founders were people of generally higher integrity than many of our current legislators.  If those founders could be resurrected from their graves today they would be appalled to see what our government has become, namely a government for sale to the fat cat interest groups.  The current public approval rating for Congress hovers around 10%, meaning that about 90%, more or less, of survey respondents do not approve of the current Congress, and there are sound reasons for that. 
Quote 0 0
Ballhawk
While I think droberts is correct that a sitting president cannot be indicted (as Mueller stated) I take minor exception to the assertion that a president is not "above the law."  True, Congress can impeach and the deposed President could then be indicted for unlawful acts, subject at that point to the rule of law.  In our current situation however it is conceivable that a partisan House may never product a bill of impeachment for the entire 4 years of Trump's term in office, during which his unlawful acts go without being addressed for the full 4 years.  Even if he were eventually indicated, after leaving office, he still would have been given 4 years of escaping accountability during his first term in office, therefore in effect "above the law" for 4 years during which much harm had been done to the nation.  
Quote 0 0
Docxyz
Ballhawk you are on target that the majority of people view congress as con artist who spend their time on "pay for play"...not on representing the 90%.  It needs a radical makeover.
Quote 0 0
Ballhawk
Today we see comments opining that a sitting could be indicted.  Maybe it was only Giuliani saying Mueller had told him no indictment, but we know that may not be true.  Senator Blumenthal stated his opinion that a sitting president could be indicted while still in office.  I think Prof. Lawrence Tribe at Harvard also thinks an indictment of Trump would be possible.  If an indictment of Trump occurred while he is still in office the question could go to the Supreme Court to decide the Constitutionality of indictment of a sitting president.  So maybe there is hope after all, hope that Trump could be indicted if Mueller finds unlawful activity by Trump. 
Quote 0 0
Delta Flight
Mueller is smart. He has a trump card and will not call till the pot is large enough IMO
Any landing you walk away from is great.
Quote 0 0
Ballhawk
I think Delta Flight is right, Mueller wants to wait until evolving evidence is fully tallied before making his final report.  Meanwhile we will probably see more indictments.  A strong majority of Americans are in favor of the Mueller investigation.  It will be interesting to see whether Mueller's final report comes before or after the 2018 mid-term elections. 
As to the question of whether Trump will allow himself to be questioned under oath by the Mueller team, I predict he will never do that voluntarily.  Of course Trump says he wants to talk to Mueller, but that is just more Trump bullshit.  
Quote 0 0
Delta Flight
Ballhawk wrote:
I think Delta Flight is right, Mueller wants to wait until evol.ing evidence is fully tallied before making his final report.  Meanwhile we will probably see more indictments.  A strong majority of Americans are in favor of the Mueller investigation.  It will be interesting to see whether Mueller's final report comes before or after the 2018 mid-term elections. 
As to the question of whether Trump will allow himself to be questioned under oath by the Mueller team, I predict he will never do that voluntarily.  Of course Trump says he wants to talk to Mueller, but that is just more Trump bullshit.  


I feel that early October would be a great time for Mueller to release his report. It just may destroy the republicans hopes of keeping control of the House. I hope that Mueller's hammer is as big as Thor's
Any landing you walk away from is great.
Quote 0 0