Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

The Trump Card...

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
There are actually multiple OLC opinions on that ... and they conflict ...
There are two OLC memo opinions on the matter, and they do not conflict with each other. There are, most definitely, conflicting opinion memos (four of them) from prosecutors and special prosecutors that conflict with, at least in part, with the OLC opinions. Namely, whether a sitting president can be indicted (to preserve any statute of limitations) and then the trial postponed when he (or she) is no longer president.

The 1973 OLC Dixon Memo (head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Robert Dixon) stated that while there was no express provision of the Constitution conferring any immunity upon the president, the “proper approach is to find the proper balance between the normal functions of the courts and the special responsibilities … of the Presidency.” Dixon concluded that “criminal proceedings against a President in office should not go beyond a point where they could result in so serious a physical interference with the President’s performance of his official duties that it would amount to an incapacitation.” Therefore, “a necessity to defend a criminal trial and to attend court … would interfere with the President’s unique official duties.”

The 2000 OLC Memo (signed by Assistant Attorney General Randolph Moss) is a thorough and compelling analysis against indicting and prosecuting while serving in office. Although, the case made against indictment is a little less compelling than is the case against prosecution. The case against indictment of a sitting president boils down to reputational harm, both to the president and the country. But, SCOTUS has flat ruled that a president can, absolutely, be named as an unindicted co-conspirator (Nixon), which has the same effect regarding reputational harm.

But the two memos are not in conflict with each other as to criminal proceedings against the president. And it's why Mueller cited the opinion as the reason he didn't even consider indicting Trump (regardless of whether there was anything indictable in his findings, which he later clarified in Congressional testimony that there was nothing indictable, anyway).
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Offline
He’d spin it as a win even if it was a complete disaster ... which it was ...

He might, but there are enough opinions that day it could be drug out for literally years. My contention is that would be a win for Trump. Trump's opinion doesn't factor into it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly and Turtle

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
I don't know why the fixation with the left on "No man is above the law," since nobody ever said otherwise.

A claim that the president has absolute immunity from subponea compliance is a claim that the president is above the law. The court refuted that claim.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
A claim that the president has absolute immunity from subponea compliance is a claim that the president is above the law. The court refuted that claim.
Well, that's certainly an interesting take on it, that the president's claim of absolute immunity in an open question, unsettled law, narrow scope of subpoena compliance (for which there are DOJ opinions that support his claim, in addition to DOJ claims that do not) means he is claiming he is above the law. That's like calling Trump a science denier because he questions the claims of some parts of the causes of global warming. To inflate that to him denying science is ridiculous. Or when he disagrees with medical experts on a coronavirus issue, experts who cannot even agree amongst themselves, 'He's denying science!"

But more to the point, the Supreme Court did not rule the president is not above the law, they ruled he must comply with the grand jury subpoena in one particular case, but also ruled he did not have to comply with a subpoena in another particular case (House Democrats). Does that mean Trump can refuse any and all future subpoenas from Congress? Of course it doesn't.

Trump has never claimed to be above the law. The only people who claim he thinks that he is are the people who can read his mind. All Trump did was present his defense on why he should be immune from certain subpoenas, and the Court disagreed with him in one case, but agreed with him in another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Offline
Well, that's certainly an interesting take on it, that the president's claim of absolute immunity in an open question, unsettled law, narrow scope of subpoena compliance (for which there are DOJ opinions that support his claim, in addition to DOJ claims that do not) means he is claiming he is above the law. That's like calling Trump a science denier because he questions the claims of some parts of the causes of global warming. To inflate that to him denying science is ridiculous. Or when he disagrees with medical experts on a coronavirus issue, experts who cannot even agree amongst themselves, 'He's denying science!"

But more to the point, the Supreme Court did not rule the president is not above the law, they ruled he must comply with the grand jury subpoena in one particular case, but also ruled he did not have to comply with a subpoena in another particular case (House Democrats). Does that mean Trump can refuse any and all future subpoenas from Congress? Of course it doesn't.

Trump has never claimed to be above the law. The only people who claim he thinks that he is are the people who can read his mind. All Trump did was present his defense on why he should be immune from certain subpoenas, and the Court disagreed with him in one case, but agreed with him in another.
I think with your latter, it will make efforts to subpoena out of the house much more difficult. the scope has been narrowed. Again a Trump win. Just the fact that Nancy still doesn't have his returns is likely driving her nuts. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle and muttly

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Is Trump getting desperate?

Item: "Trump says path to citizenship for DACA 'Dreamers' in the works"

Item: "Donald Trump wears a mask in public for the first time during Covid-19 pandemic"
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Doubt it. He's mentioned a Dreamer path to citizenship several times, going back nearly 3 years. As for the mask, he wore it in a hospital setting.

But according to the MSM, according to copious amounts of unnamed people familiar with the situation, he caved on wearing a mask after virtually everyone in the White House got down on their knees and begged him to wear it at the hospital.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
.... according to copious amounts of unnamed people familiar with the situation, he caved on wearing a mask after virtually everyone in the White House got down on their knees and begged him to wear it at the hospital.
Probably the only truth to come out of this
White House.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: muttly and Turtle

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
I had the opportunity to work in other areas of the city north of Detroit the past few days. I observed Trump yard signs in this area as well. Not a whole lot, but they are scattered throughout the area. I also notice a large amount of houses with American flags. These are overwhelmingly Trump voters.
This area is not the city of Warren. It's another city and it doesn't have Fouts as their mayor. For those that are hearing impaired, I repeat, does NOT have wacko (3 times) as their mayor:

saturday-night-live-garrett-morris-hard-of-hearing-news (1).jpg



Also, for those who think Trump is getting desperate about his reelection. No need to be. He continues to have very solid approval from his supporters.
I'll continue to give updates about observations on the ground here in the city that is not Warren.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: davekc

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
I think the Redskins should change their name to the Washington Grifters.
Or maybe the D.C. Redskins.
Or maybe the Washington Karens.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: muttly

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
I think the Redskins should change their name to the Washington Grifters.
Or maybe the D.C. Redskins.
Or maybe the Washington Karens.
The Washington Wokeskins.
 
Top