Whether the president can be indicted or arrested is really just a law school question.

In reality, you will never ever see a situation where the FBI is having a confrontation with the Secret Service about Arresting the president.

VegasAg86 said:

---

txwxman said:

---

Quote:

---

Further as Mark Levin, Joseph DiGenova, Gregg Jarrett, Judge Jeanine Pirro, Sean Hannity, Sara Carter, Jay Sekulow and a number of qualified attorneys and former Federal Judges have detailed and as can be found in the 2000 VOLUME 24 OPINIONS OF THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONCERNING THE OFFICIAL DUTIES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL attached hereto, the President cannot be indicted or criminally prosecuted anyway

---

I was doubting the credibility of this post until I saw the author quoted Levin and Hannity. Would be even more credible if Guiliani supported this opinion as well. That would really add weight to the argument.

---

It's not their argument. It's the official position of the Department of Justice. These people have merely pointed that out.

---

Exactly and they uploaded the supporting document for the statement, I just don't waste a lot of time with drive bys

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b02b00_3c32b2676d8740bbaab6be0b3c8459ab.pdf

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1012777493093183488.html

Perspective worth remembering.

Here's another attachment that an interesting read. It's a Civil Case that was filed by Elliott J. Schuchardt

Case 2:14-cv-00705-CB filed a few years ago in the USDC WPA




https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b02b00_991c1b5a754c4c55a76e19a5c36710f3.pdf

And the 3rd Cir Opinion

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4302531/elliott-schuchardt-v-president-usa/

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/trump-russia-probe-robert-mueller-investigation/

Quote:

---

...So what are the suspected crimes committed by Donald Trump that Mueller has been authorized to investigate, and what was the factual basis for Rosenstein's authorization of this investigation?

We still haven't been told.

The anti-Trump Left decries all criticism as an effort to "delegitimize" and "obstruct" the Mueller investigation. But no one is questioning the investigation of Russia's interference in the election. We are questioning why a special counsel was appointed to investigate the president of the United States. It is the Justice Department's obligation to establish the legitimacy of the appointment by explaining the factual basis for believing a crime was committed. If there is no such basis, then it is Mueller's investigation that is delegitimizing the presidency and obstructing its ability to carry out its constitutional mission a mission that is far more significant than any prosecutor's case.

We're not asking for much. After 16 months, we are just asking why there is a criminal investigation of the president. If Rod Rosenstein would just explain what the regs call for him to explain namely, the basis to believe that Donald Trump conspired with the Kremlin to violate a specific federal criminal law, or is somehow criminally complicit in the Kremlin's election sabotage then we can all get behind Robert Mueller's investigation.

But what is the explanation? And why isn't the Republican-controlled Congress demanding it?

---

---

First they denied there was any wiretapping going on, then the FISA warrant on Page was discovered

And remember the left's narrative. Once it was discovered that they had been spying on the POTUS, the narrative was it was a counterintelligence operation, to protect Trump.

Now that the DNC HRC dossier garbage is in the open they try and say oh the dossier wasn't but a small part of the warrant.

Of course McCabe testifies that without the dossier there would be no FISA warrant, then the left say's oh McCabe was fired for misleading the DOJ, so what he said under oath holds no water.

The DOJOIG Horowitz calls the Russia probe by name and calls it a counterintelligence operation, making it official.

Right there Mueller should have been dismissed. There is no provision that allows a Special Counsel run a counterintelligence operation. There's no provision for that type of appointment whatsoever. Special Counsels are appointed to oversee "criminal investigations" that's it.

What's the crime for appointment as McCarthy asks.

Then JW gets the Application via FOIA and it's plain that the dossier was the main part of the FISA warrant. The left says that it's all behind the redactions.

Oh wait! What happened to the original lie that there was no proof of wiretapping Trump?

Behind those redactions lies the proof that Obama used FVEY to spy on the incoming POTUS. I believe that is what Farkas was talking about when she said, "If 'the Trump folks' found out how they knew what they knew, they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence."

The redactions are there to hide the embarrassment to the UK that they were involved, and the probable illegality involved in the abuse of the 702 system.

Alright you guys, I've got to get outside and help a few neighbors clean up some flood damage here in Arlington, and a little bit of my own. BUT, crinum, Roscoe, blindey, Hawg, y'alll need to get busy finding juicy political tidbits I can be excited when I get back here about 6:00 PM.

Now, if you hear something like Valerie Jarrett has a skin eating ameoba, I'll include my cell # for immediate edification!!!

Now, go forth and enlighten!

Best advice yet

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Best advice yet

---

That Op ed was essentially meaningless in the overall scheme of things, other than the NYT has now admitted there is a form of the "deep state" within the government that is actively working to hurt Trump. Something they had previously scoffed at as being ludicrous.

But the efforts to smear Kavenaugh (although futile) are quite annoying. https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/death-throes-of-stopkavanaugh-perjury-accusations-criminal-and-bar-complaints//#more

fasthorses05 said:

---

Alright you guys, I've got to get outside and help a few neighbors clean up some flood damage here in Arlington, and a little bit of my own. BUT, crinum, Roscoe, blindey, Hawg, y'alll need to get busy finding juicy political tidbits I can be excited when I get back here about 6:00 PM.

Now, if you hear something like Valerie Jarrett has a skin eating ameoba, I'll include my cell # for immediate edification!!!

Now, go forth and enlighten!

---

Some don't have time for the "drive by" (read deplorables) to explain their posts or enlighten those who are less trained/experienced in the judicial/law enforcement arts. In other words..."law dogs" is what "goes around here".

In your case, you might be "included" for the humor alone.

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/trump-russia-probe-robert-mueller-investigation/

Quote:

---

...So what are the suspected crimes committed by Donald Trump that Mueller has been authorized to investigate, and what was the factual basis for Rosenstein's authorization of this investigation?

We still haven't been told.

The anti-Trump Left decries all criticism as an effort to "delegitimize" and "obstruct" the Mueller investigation. But no one is questioning the investigation of Russia's interference in the election. We are questioning why a special counsel was appointed to investigate the president of the United States. It is the Justice Department's obligation to establish the legitimacy of the appointment by explaining the factual basis for believing a crime was committed. If there is no such basis, then it is Mueller's investigation that is delegitimizing the presidency and obstructing its ability to carry out its constitutional mission a mission that is far more significant than any prosecutor's case.

We're not asking for much. After 16 months, we are just asking why there is a criminal investigation of the president. If Rod Rosenstein would just explain what the regs call for him to explain namely, the basis to believe that Donald Trump conspired with the Kremlin to violate a specific federal criminal law, or is somehow criminally complicit in the Kremlin's election sabotage then we can all get behind Robert Mueller's investigation.

But what is the explanation? And why isn't the Republican-controlled Congress demanding it?

---

---

The crime is he's a Republican and he won the election.

Quote:

---

The crime is he's a Republican and he won the election.

---

Although I don't dispute that at all I have to wonder exactly why Obama and Hillary perceived such a political threat from Trump so early in the primaries to start poking around and then feeling the necessity to go full FBI, FISA and many illegal acts before and after the actual election?

Look, I understand paranoia and OCD but none of the polls ever predicted Hill was not going to win. Certainly not when Crossfire Hurricane was allegedly begun. (I doubt that is actually the truth, BTW. FBI/DOJ lied about that.)

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The crime is he's a Republican and he won the election.

---

Although I don't dispute that at all I have to wonder exactly why Obama and Hillary perceived such a political threat from Trump so early in the primaries to start poking around and then feeling the necessity to go full FBI, FISA and many illegal acts before and after the actual election?

Look, I understand paranoia and OCD but none of the polls ever predicted Hill was not going to win. Certainly not when Crossfire Hurricane was allegedly begun. (I doubt that is actually the truth, BTW. FBI/DOJ lied about that.)

---

Good point, I can only speculate like everyone else. My theory is they were delighted to have Trump as the R candidate because they thought he'd be easiest to beat. They weaponized surveillance because 0 already had a history and familiarity with weaponizing the other alphabet agencies.

In other words, this was par for the course for the 0 administration.

Quote:

---

My theory is they were delighted to have Trump as the R candidate because they thought he'd be easiest to beat. They weaponized surveillance because 0 already had a history and familiarity with weaponizing the other alphabet agencies.

In other words, this was par for the course for the 0 administration.

---

So, SNAFU* for Obama? Okay. I can go with that too. Combination of paranoia and OCD.

*The original meaning from the military slang for "Situation Normal, All F***ed Up" for the youngsters.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The crime is he's a Republican and he won the election.

---

Although I don't dispute that at all I have to wonder exactly why Obama and Hillary perceived such a political threat from Trump so early in the primaries to start poking around and then feeling the necessity to go full FBI, FISA and many illegal acts before and after the actual election?

Look, I understand paranoia and OCD but none of the polls ever predicted Hill was not going to win. Certainly not when Crossfire Hurricane was allegedly begun. (I doubt that is actually the truth, BTW. FBI/DOJ lied about that.)

---

Maybe I am misremembering, but weren't there rumors that numerous Congressmen, Republican candidates, were surveilled?

They were probably on to and spying on all the R candidates to varying degrees.

More so Trump I believe because they wanted to teach him a lesson and destroy him even after he lost.

Basically teach an "outsider " his place since R's and D's are two sides of the same coin anyway.

I have no doubt they were spying on all of the R candidates. We learned from the Wiki emails that early on hrc was most worried about Jeb because of his ability to raise a lot of money. They actually wanted to run against Trump or Cruz because they believed those 2 were the most beatable and one of the emails suggested they contact their friends in the media to play up Trump and Cruz.

Get over your yourself Mr."seditious conspiracy" McCarthy. Substitute a non-legal synonym like "treacherous subterfuge" and say it's lunacy with an icky cult vibe.

I normally like McCarthy ... except when he comes across as an elitist.

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The crime is he's a Republican and he won the election.

---

Although I don't dispute that at all I have to wonder exactly why Obama and Hillary perceived such a political threat from Trump so early in the primaries to start poking around and then feeling the necessity to go full FBI, FISA and many illegal acts before and after the actual election?

Look, I understand paranoia and OCD but none of the polls ever predicted Hill was not going to win. Certainly not when Crossfire Hurricane was allegedly begun. (I doubt that is actually the truth, BTW. FBI/DOJ lied about that.)

---

Maybe I am misremembering, but weren't there rumors that numerous Congressmen, Republican candidates, were surveilled?

---

Rumors? Yes. Documented proof? Not yet.

benchmark said:

---

Get over your yourself Mr."seditious conspiracy" McCarthy. Substitute a non-legal synonym like "treacherous subterfuge" and say it's lunacy with an icky cult vibe.

I normally like McCarthy ... except when he comes across as an elitist.

---

Telling people that the op-Ed wasn't treason or sedition isn't elitism It's a fact people need to understand

BMX Bandit said:

---

Telling people that the op-Ed wasn't treason or sedition isn't elitism It's a fact people need to understand

---

Only to the extent the op-Ed wasn't a statutory criminal offence. Spare me the lunacy icky cult equivalency.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The crime is he's a Republican and he won the election.

---

Although I don't dispute that at all I have to wonder exactly why Obama and Hillary perceived such a political threat from Trump so early in the primaries to start poking around and then feeling the necessity to go full FBI, FISA and many illegal acts before and after the actual election?

Look, I understand paranoia and OCD but none of the polls ever predicted Hill was not going to win. Certainly not when Crossfire Hurricane was allegedly begun. (I doubt that is actually the truth, BTW. FBI/DOJ lied about that.)

---

Trump was a significant thorn in Obama's side with the birther crap. They wanted ammo to shut him up after he lost. Especially as he began to play up the "rigged election" business.

Further,

They honestly believe the birther crap is why congress went red in 2010 and stayed that way. They wanted to give Hillary cover to enact her, read Obama's continuing, agenda. They needed trump out of the way. They were going to blackmail him into silence by threatening his wealth.

I don't think the insurance policy was if trump won. It was if trump caused a fuss after losing. Hence, "They never thought she would lose."

I have said it before, but after seeing all of this, I believe they were spying on all of R candidates who they thought could win and Trump just happened to win so kicked into high gear.

BMX Bandit said:

---

benchmark said:

---

Get over your yourself Mr."seditious conspiracy" McCarthy. Substitute a non-legal synonym like "treacherous subterfuge" and say it's lunacy with an icky cult vibe.

I normally like McCarthy ... except when he comes across as an elitist.

---

Telling people that the op-Ed wasn't treason or sedition isn't elitism It's a fact people need to understand

---

I agree with you here. But I think it's also important for everyone to rewind and remember rhetorical context.

For almost two years now, the Democrats have essentially argued that it is treason to talk to or have a prior business relationship with a citizen of a country that has the 15th largest economy, 9th largest population, 2nd largest nuclear stock pile, WTO membership, UN Membership, formal U.S. trading relationship, hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. investments, and the largest land mass in the world.

The definition of Treason is another word victim in the ever growing laundry list of words that the progressive movement tries to redefine for their own political end game.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The crime is he's a Republican and he won the election.

---

Although I don't dispute that at all I have to wonder exactly why Obama and Hillary perceived such a political threat from Trump so early in the primaries to start poking around and then feeling the necessity to go full FBI, FISA and many illegal acts before and after the actual election?

Look, I understand paranoia and OCD but none of the polls ever predicted Hill was not going to win. Certainly not when Crossfire Hurricane was allegedly begun. (I doubt that is actually the truth, BTW. FBI/DOJ lied about that.)

---

I think it was personal. Remember that infamous clip of Obama dissing Trump in the crowd at a dinner in NYC? I think Obama wanted to cut Trump off at the knees.

Quote:

---

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Friday floated a startling possibility: Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious professor who allegedly told former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos about hacked Clinton emails, could be dead.
The DNC made the statement in legal papers filed in a lawsuit related to hacks of its computer systems during the 2016 election cycle. The filing states that all defendants in the case had been served with the lawsuit, "with the exception of Mifsud (who is missing and may be deceased)."
"An investigator involved in our efforts to serve him was told Mifsud might be deceased," the DNC told reporters who asked about the claim.
But a Swiss-German lawyer who has been described as a close friend and adviser of Mifsud's calls the allegation "nonsense."
"I'm in a better mood today. I got it from really good sources. They say that he is alive, that he has another identity, and that he is staying somewhere, at a nice place," Stephan Roh told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Sunday.
"I just this morning got a message, indirectly, that he is alive and that they have provided him with another identity," added Roh, who did not describe his sources....

---

Mifsud must think someone wants him dead. Now who would that be?

[Hillary rummages through her purse for the keys to the Arkancide machine]

Who is the they that gave him a new identity?

Seems Deripaska was in the US in April 2016. Hmmm... Lots of things happened in April 2016, such as the initial planning for the dossier. I wonder if he met with Fusion GPS/Glenn Simpson or the Ohrs.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1039018148605771776.html