-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mueller Says Trump Will NOT Be Indicted
- Thread starter xStoyax
- Start date
infinitys_7th
Member
Mueller is already trying to cushion himself against the backlash when all his investigation turned up were decade old crimes and a handful of lies to investigators about nothing.
Last edited:
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
I think there should be a distinction made between WILL NOT and CANNOT.
camelCase
Member
Fact that it was fine print made me laugh
Stoya likes to spin
rokkerkory
Member
Source: G U I L I A N I
From the article:
“"The Justice Department memos going back to before Nixon say that you cannot indict a sitting president, you have to impeach him. Now there was a little time in which there was some dispute about that, but they acknowledged to us orally that they understand that they can't violate the Justice Department rules," Giuliani said.”
Translation: it’s possible to impeach then indict.
“"The Justice Department memos going back to before Nixon say that you cannot indict a sitting president, you have to impeach him. Now there was a little time in which there was some dispute about that, but they acknowledged to us orally that they understand that they can't violate the Justice Department rules," Giuliani said.”
Translation: it’s possible to impeach then indict.
xStoyax
Banned
Which part of my post was me spinning it as a win? Was it the part where I quoted the article? Or were you just so desperate to believe something you made it up?
Case closed. Moving along.
ickythingz
Banned
Except Trump is president and has earned me more money. So yes, that is what we call a win.
Turbo Killer
Member
Lol. This just kills the whole story.
I’m going to go with the fucking headline? There is a gigantic difference between will not and cannot and you absolutely know it.
All of it. It’s full of partisan garbage. Mueller can’t indict a sitting president; Trump needs to be impeached first. This is basically someone just saying that Mueller won’t break the law and you go “SOYBOY CUCK MUELLER WONT INDICT HERP DERP DA LEFT ALSO HILARRRYYY”
It’s fucking stupid. I bet if you paused for a second to think about it before posting you’d have realized that.
EDIT: Also, the cnn article even says “can’t” but you used the word “won’t.” You’re CLEARLY trying to spin this. Stop being obtuse about it, nobody is buying that shit.
Last edited:
j_k_redtail
Member
It's Congress' role to impeach. He will produce a report, and then we'll see if the GOP loves the country more than it loves itself.
Dontero
Banned
Yes impeachement is how you depose current president of power. But it requires majority in congress. And unlike Democrats who live by Russia story Republicans don't believe it at all (and less than of US nation from what i read).
So literally no way to impeach him.
If the report comes out after midterms (which may be on purpose) then it’s possible that enough seats flip to allow an impeachment to proceed.
Don't you need 2/3rds of the vote for that?
Vicetrailia
Banned
Autoignition
Member
This whole story is so bizarre to me for two reasons:
1) It came from Rudy Giuliani.
2) Even if we assume Giuliani to be not making shit up, this message didn't come to Giuliani from Mueller himself.
The extended version of the story is that this wasn't volunteered information, but rather someone on the Mueller team was asked if the president would be indicted, and the response was more or less, "the current DOJ policy is that a sitting president cannot be indicted."
Like, I don't... understand what the point of Giuliani's statement is on this. DOJ policy is DOJ policy. This shouldn't be news?
1) It came from Rudy Giuliani.
2) Even if we assume Giuliani to be not making shit up, this message didn't come to Giuliani from Mueller himself.
The extended version of the story is that this wasn't volunteered information, but rather someone on the Mueller team was asked if the president would be indicted, and the response was more or less, "the current DOJ policy is that a sitting president cannot be indicted."
Like, I don't... understand what the point of Giuliani's statement is on this. DOJ policy is DOJ policy. This shouldn't be news?
TheShadowLord
Member
Does Trump though? Ther have been so many reports of him wanting to get rid of Muller. If I was Trump, I wouldn't be losing steam on this.. Now if the Democrats made up the majority....
Last edited:
KarneeKarnay
Member
So OP just cherry picked and misrepresented the actual information...OP why you gotta be fake news?
Tumle
Member
Maybe he wants a job at CNN or Fox News, and needs the credentials?
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
This whole story is silly. DOJ memos are not law, and saying Mueller cannot do something if he follows the DOJ memos does not mean he cannot do something. I'm not a supporter of indictment or impeachment based on what I have seen, but this story does not mean he will definitely not be indicted even if RG was telling the whole truth.
Ok, this was good. I laughed.Maybe he wants a job at CNN or Fox News, and needs the credentials?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It's silly, but not quite for that reason. Although DOJ memos are not law, they do have a legal impact, in that they control what employees of the DOJ may and may not do (this was most recently clarified in the courts by Judge Alsup of the 9th Circuit in the DACA case), and that if they step outside those bounds their actions may not be legal.
Here's a link to the various memos in case anyone is interested. I wouldn't suggest reading them all - these are long-ass memos running to 255 pages in aggregate - if you're going to read one make it the Moss memo from October 2000.
No, the reason it is silly is that there's no complicated political process to go through to change the policy. You don't need a 2/3 majority or anything, you just write another memo. Indeed the oldest one, the Bork memo, is from October 1973, that's 15 months after the Watergate Grand Jury was impaneled, and Bork's argument was quite tied to the facts of the Nixon case. If, in the specific circumstances of the current investigation, the DOJ wanted to change its mind there's a template already there (the Rotunda memo to Ken Starr of May 1998, included in the above link) all ready to copy and paste.
I rather suspect that they would prefer to go the impeachment route rather than rock the boat, but they could do so - and that possibility might provide some pressure on Congress in impeachment proceedings.
Giuliani claiming there's some real immunity is just smoke, his claiming that Mueller said so is mirrors.
Guiliani is a lawyer representing his client is all. His belief/plan is to create an expectation that if it isn't met would simply feel like everyone's been duped. It's easier to fight the court of public opinion than the law...Guiliani if you notice never actually specifies anyone.
pickleslips
Member
Neogafs first posts have changed from being alright to being alt right.
rokkerkory
Member
But but the deeeep state! They were ok against hillary but now? Reign them in