In 1973 the Decision was Made Regarding Indicting A Sitting President

[easyt65]

That, according to the policy of the Department of Justice, and its own memorandums regarding policy, it is Un-Constitutional for a Prosecutor / Grand Jury to attempt to 'Un-Elect' a Sitting Presiden through attenpted indictment /conviction.

What Mueller is attempting to do, in essence, is 'by-pass Congress and their constitutional authority to remove a president through Impeachment, on his own as an independent prosecutor with his own Grand Jury.

Whatever Powers he may have been given as a Special Counsel prosecutor, he was not given the authority to violate the Constitution and by-pass Congress to take down a sitting president.

The Democrats, the former Obama administration officials who are in on this, and Mueller are seditiously and treasonously attempting to UN-ELECT a sitting US president based on no proven crime (zero evidence) having been committed. Mueller is attempting to use the accusation of a crime, that is not supported by any existing evidence, to subpoena a sitting president, forcing him into an interview in which he hopes to entrap the president, thereby then indicting that president for a crime in order to 'un-elect' him, basically, as president.

THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW!

Mueller has already violated many of these principles of the Memorandums of the DOJ, such as the one mentioned above.



Indicting the President: President Clinton’s Justice Department Says No

 

[Rambunctious]

The swamp and the dems don't care about the past
they are out to get Trump out of office anyway they can and the media is by their side helping them....they will either succeed or they won't...either way however they are screwing themselves...

 

[nat4900]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

 

[Votto]

They funny part is, Mueller and company adamantly deny that this is all a scheme to get Trump because that is not lawful. You need a FISA warrant and need a good reason to obtain one cuz that is the Constitution. However, every Dim poster here says every day they are that much closer to nabbing Trump as they search the residence of his lawyer and physician.

Funny stuff.

 

[candycorn]

Not a chance.

The real bonus is that whether or not it bears fruit, it tarnishes Trump for a long time.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, that was that one person's opinion. Unfortunately for you and for Trump, that guy's opinion is not binding on anyone.

 

[BULLDOG]

View attachment 191359

Not a chance.

The real bonus is that whether or not it bears fruit, it tarnishes Trump for a long time.

Trump was tarnished before he ever ran for the presidency.

 

[JGalt]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

So you're supporting the constitution, a document which was written by "old, dead white men."? Are we in Bizarro World or something?

Granted the case of Gravel vs. United States
ruled that “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime”, where is the "crime" concerning President Donald Trump? It's already been proven that there was absolutely no "collusion" during the election. Even so, when did "collusion" become a crime?

You people have nothing.

 

[Tom Horn]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

Hey Laughing Boy.....

On June 20, 2012, President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege in order to withhold certain Department of Justice documents related to the Operation Fast and Furious controversy ahead of a United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to produce the documents.[27][28] Later the same day, the House Committee voted 23–17 along party lines to hold Holder in contempt of Congress over not releasing the documents.[29]

Executive privilege was also used in a lawsuit stemming from the 2012 implementation of the "Net Worth Sweep" against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Obama administration did not disclose roughly 11,000 documents from the plaintiffs in the discovery process as they related to the reasoning behind the 2012 actions.[citation needed]

 

[BULLDOG]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

So you're supporting the constitution, a document which was written by "old, dead white men."? Are we in Bizarro World or something?

Granted the case of Gravel vs. United States
ruled that “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime”, where is the "crime" concerning President Donald Trump? It's already been proven that there was absolutely no "collusion" during the election. Even so, when did "collusion" become a crime?

You people have nothing.

When was that proven? That silly House investigation didn't prove anything.

 

[easyt65]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

Read all the menorandums and full contexts.

A single (and obviously buased and parisan) prosecutor does not have the authority to 'Un-elect' a sitting President.

Furthermore, according to the DOJ memoranduns, a sitting President can not be indicted because the demands of abswering accusations and judicially defend his case would put undue pressure on the Chief Executive Officer / President whose job and all his focus and effort must be on the service to and defense of this country.

What the Democrats have been and are doing are undermining the Preident and his ability to carry out his elected duties based ontheir own hatred and prejudices, not on any piece of evidence that exists, not based on any evidence of any crime committed warranting an investigation at all.

As I have repeatedly said for a long while, what we are witnessing now is the largest, collaborated internal coup / act of treason / threat to this nation's democracy in our nation's history...all because a power-hungry, bitter minority - proven enemies of the state within - refuses to accept the outcome of the legal democratic 2016 election!

 

[BULLDOG]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

Read all the menorandums and full contexts.

A single (and obviously buased and parisan) prosecutor does not have the authority to 'Un-elect' a sitting President.

Furthermore, according to the DOJ memoranduns, a sitting President can not be indicted because the demands of abswering accusations and judicially defend his case would put undue pressure on the Chief Executive Officer / President whose job and all his focus and effort must be on the service to and defense of this country.

What the Democrats have been and are doing are undermining the Preident and his ability to carry out his elected duties based ontheir own hatred and prejudices, not on any piece of evidence that exists, not based on any evidence of any crime committed warranting an investigation at all.

As I have repeatedly said for a long while, what we are witnessing now is the largest, collaborated internal coup / act of treason / threat to this nation's democracy in our nation's history...all because a power-hungry, bitter minority - proven enemies of the state within - refuses to accept the outcome of the legal democratic 2016 election!

Nobody is trying to unelect Trump. That will be up to congress when they impeach him.

 

[gipper]

View attachment 191359

Not a chance.

The real bonus is that whether or not it bears fruit, it tarnishes Trump for a long time.

Trump was tarnished before he ever ran for the presidency.

True. Like nearly all our recent presidents.

 

[Tom Horn]

When was that proven? That silly House investigation didn't prove anything.

Exactly....because there was nothing to prove.

 

[candycorn]

View attachment 191359

Not a chance.

The real bonus is that whether or not it bears fruit, it tarnishes Trump for a long time.

Trump was tarnished before he ever ran for the presidency.

Well yeah but I meant the 6 year Benghazi type of slowly being dragged through the mud back and fourth. The only difference is that Trump is authentically corrupt, criminal, and everyone knows it.

 

[BULLDOG]

When was that proven? That silly House investigation didn't prove anything.

Exactly....because there was nothing to prove.

I was responding to a statement that falsely claimed it had been proven.

Post #8
" It's already been proven that there was absolutely no "collusion" during the election"

 

[Tom Horn]

Nobody is trying to unelect Trump. That will be up to congress when they impeach him.

First your "blue wave" has to retake the House (never happen) and then get 67 Senators' votes to convict....MAGA.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nobody is trying to unelect Trump. That will be up to congress when they impeach him.

First your "blue wave" has to retake the House (never happen) and then get 67 Senators' votes to convict....MAGA.

We'll see

 

[JGalt]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

So you're supporting the constitution, a document which was written by "old, dead white men."? Are we in Bizarro World or something?

Granted the case of Gravel vs. United States
ruled that “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime”, where is the "crime" concerning President Donald Trump? It's already been proven that there was absolutely no "collusion" during the election. Even so, when did "collusion" become a crime?

You people have nothing.

When was that proven? That silly House investigation didn't prove anything.

Nor has Mueller's "investigation." Where is the proof that Trump somehow "colluded" with Russia in order to "steal" the election?

Where is the proof that the Russians had anything to do with Trump winning?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

Read all the menorandums and full contexts.

A single (and obviously buased and parisan) prosecutor does not have the authority to 'Un-elect' a sitting President.

Furthermore, according to the DOJ memoranduns, a sitting President can not be indicted because the demands of abswering accusations and judicially defend his case would put undue pressure on the Chief Executive Officer / President whose job and all his focus and effort must be on the service to and defense of this country.

What the Democrats have been and are doing are undermining the Preident and his ability to carry out his elected duties based ontheir own hatred and prejudices, not on any piece of evidence that exists, not based on any evidence of any crime committed warranting an investigation at all.

As I have repeatedly said for a long while, what we are witnessing now is the largest, collaborated internal coup / act of treason / threat to this nation's democracy in our nation's history...all because a power-hungry, bitter minority - proven enemies of the state within - refuses to accept the outcome of the legal democratic 2016 election!

Nobody is trying to unelect Trump. That will be up to congress when they impeach him.

Impeach him for what?