The Bottom Line

[easyt65]

1. A sitting president CANNOT be indicted.
-- Official DOJ policy since 1973. Not even Special Counsel, the Southern District of New York (SDNY), nor Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein can change that.

2. SDNY is NOT expert in campaign finance violations and neither is the Clinton appointed district judge. They rarely handle campaign finance cases.
-- The Leftist media and politicians are parroting the self-serving briefs the prosecutors have filed without looking at / reporting actual rules / context that apply.

3 Those ACTUAL rules and context do NOT include Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) or infinite other contracts, payments, arrangements, acts of a private nature, etc. as campaign contributions.
-- This is EXACTLY WHY the left-wing media and politicians do no read / report the actual rules and context.

4. SDNY inclusion of these charges in the Cohen plea deal was a sleazy political and PR attack against the president by an office coordinating with Mueller and aligned with Comey.
-- SDNY knew Cohen would plead. It, therefore, knew its absurd allegations would not be tested in any courtroom — district, circuit or Supreme Court. If they were tested, SDNY would be hammered...But it knew the left-wing media and politicians would use the mere over-the-top allegations from its office, with absolutely nothing more, to claim the president committed campaign felonies. No due process. No assumption of innocence. They knew they couldn’t charge a sitting president. Thus, they convict the president in the press, not only an extreme act of professional misconduct but a violation of the very purpose of the DOJ memos banning the indictment of a sitting president...

5. NDAs involving wholly private matters occurring before the president was even a candidate and completely unrelated to his office cannot legitimately trigger the Constitution's impeachment clause.
-- The history of the clause and its “high crimes and misdemeanors” language make it crystal clear that the office and the president’s duties are not affected in any conceivable way by these earlier private contracts.

As usual, the Witch Hunters and Rah-Rah Liberal media are whipping the snowflakes into a tizzy again only to have their hopes, dreams, and high spirits dashed again...


Mark Levin: A time for truth

.

 

[theHawk]

Yup, they are only doing it as a political stunt. That’s all they have left now, Mueller came up empty.

 

[MarcATL]

OP, didn't you far rightwing bastards spend the entire 8 years of Obama's Presidency INSISTING that a sitting President CAN be indicted?

 

[easyt65]

OP, didn't you far rightwing bastards spend the entire 8 years of Obama's Presidency INSISTING that a sitting President CAN be indicted?

NO

Whenever you use the term 'rightwing' 'whatever instead of being specific in who you are talking about it always means you are pulling crap out of your ass and trying to distract from the facts brought up. FAIL!

 

[MarcATL]

NO

Whenever you use the term 'rightwing' 'whatever instead of being specific in who you are talking about it always means you are pulling crap out of your ass and trying to distract from the facts brought up. FAIL!

There were threads about arresting Obama created, many in fact, right here on USMB.

You can't have an arrest w/o an indictment.

So not only are you a rabid far rightwing hack, you're dishonest too.

But I guess those are one in the same.

 

[Lesh]

1. A sitting president CANNOT be indicted.
-- Official DOJ policy since 1973.

That's a POLICY (not a law) that came out of Nixon's DOJ. Oh...

Those ACTUAL rules and context do NOT include Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)

NDAs are civil and have no bearing on criminal investigations or charges

 

[g5000]

If Lyin' Donald broke the law, he should not be indicted. He should be impeached.

I would not indict him for the hooker bribery thing. I'd wait until Mueller is finished with his investigation. If Crazy Donald is a thoroughly corrupt crook, Mueller will find it, and then not even the GOP Senate will be able to stomach the idea of letting Crooked Donald off the hook.

 

[g5000]

Crooked Donald suborned his personal attorney to violate the law, all to cover up his adultery so he could win the election.

If Stormy and McDougal had gone public in a big way so soon after Crooked Donald was outed as a pussy grabber, he'd have done down faster than a porn star on Ron Jeremy's crank.

Now the poor tards are setting all new low benchmarks which will come back to bitch slap them someday.

"Yeah, but did he shoot the guy on Fifth Avenue in the head on a Tuesday after 7 pm on an even numbered day in February?"

 

[Papageorgio]

OP, didn't you far rightwing bastards spend the entire 8 years of Obama's Presidency INSISTING that a sitting President CAN be indicted?

Indictments? I don’t recall that. I recall impeachment not indictments. Do you have a link?

 

[Lesh]

Now the poor tards are setting all new low benchmarks which will come back to bitch slap them someday.

That they will conveniently forget.

Kinda like the whole "deficit scold" thing that they turn on and off as needed.

 

[Papageorgio]

If Lyin' Donald broke the law, he should not be indicted. He should be impeached.

I would not indict him for the hooker bribery thing. I'd wait until Mueller is finished with his investigation. If Crazy Donald is a thoroughly corrupt crook, Mueller will find it, and then not even the GOP Senate will be able to stomach the idea of letting Crooked Donald off the hook.

I agree with yo, impeach and wait for Mueller to finish. Justice is slow however if there is wrong doing he needs the Senate to remove him.

 

[Rocko]

NO

Whenever you use the term 'rightwing' 'whatever instead of being specific in who you are talking about it always means you are pulling crap out of your ass and trying to distract from the facts brought up. FAIL!

There were threads about arresting Obama created, many in fact, right here on USMB.

You can't have an arrest w/o an indictment.

So not only are you a rabid far rightwing hack, you're dishonest too.

But I guess those are one in the same.

So name names instead of making blanket statements

 

[g5000]

OP, didn't you far rightwing bastards spend the entire 8 years of Obama's Presidency INSISTING that a sitting President CAN be indicted?

Indictments? I don’t recall that. I recall impeachment not indictments. Do you have a link?

Here you go. Birther forum member 007 getting a hardon about an Obama indictment:

The Audacity of Unawareness... (add your own examples to the list.)

Thank you for posting that one Meister, which brings me to this. We WILL see his "real" birth documentation sooner or later. The pressure is building and the momentum is getting stronger. It will reach critical mass and the documents will HAVE to be released, and I'll bet ANYONE HERE, EVEN THE MODS WHO KEEP MOVING THE TOPIC INTO THE CONSPIRACY THEORY SECTION, that obama is NOT ELIGIBLE to hold the office of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.....

Grand Juries Cite Obama For Ineligibility, Treason

Hundreds of 'presentments' being handed to prosecutors


Posted: May 21, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Hundreds of "presentments" – or accusations assembled by citizen grand juries – are scheduled to be given to courts, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges and legislators across the United States by July 4 alleging that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president and his occupancy in the Oval Office constitutes treason.

The accusations are being assembled by the citizen grand juries that have been meeting in recent weeks around the country. One organization, American Grand Jury, now has posted an online procedure that provides a step-by-step instruction manual for those who are concerned about Obama.

American Grand Jury Editor Bob Campbell's site includes information on the history of grand juries, their powers, rules, evidence, forms, etiquette and how to file the resulting claims.

While there are other groups organizing and holding grand jury meetings, Campbell told WND that his is the largest group, having convened five already along with two state grand juries. It plans to sponsor another half dozen in the next 30 days.

"Sooner or later some court or many courts will formally indict Obama from our presentments or [a] complaint," he said. "Our goal is to convene and conclude 12 to 13 grand juries before July 4 rolls around and to serve our presentments as many as 200 times with courts, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges or legislators across the land.

"The pressure is mounting and someday justice will be served or the country will probably explode from loss of faith in our Constitution," he said.

If those numbers don't produce action, he said, the plans are to double, or triple the numbers, and try again.

One such citizens grand jury met recently in a Chicago suburb, literally in Obama's home territory. There spokesman Richard Keefner told WND, jurors were sworn in, reviewed the evidence and deliberated.

"We all came to a unanimous decision that we felt it should be investigated further and warranted the indictment," he told WND.

The citizens grand jury is just the latest channel through which Americans are raising protests over a president they believe is ineligible to hold that office.

Many of the challenges have come through the courts. WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

And the answer could take only minutes: authorization from the president to Hawaiian officials to release his documentation.

A recent presentment from one of the American Grand Jury meetings said there's not even any question about Obama's eligibility any longer.

"Article II, Section 1 states: 'No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the Untied States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…" says Count One.

"Wherefore, Obama is not a 'natural born Citizen' for the following reasons: 1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH US Citizens. These facts are not in dispute: Under the British Nationality Act 1948, Obama's father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya. Obama's father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father," the charge continues.

"It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama's father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject," it says.

Secondly, the accusation of treason comes from a retired member of the U.S. military officer, Lt. Cmdr. Walter Fitzpatrick III, who has presented his complaint to U.S. Attorney Russell Dedrick in Tennessee, the presentment explains.

In that, he alleged, "Now you [Obama] have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment. Known military criminal actors-command racketeers-are now free in the exercise of military government intent upon destruction of America's constitutional government. We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works."

The American Grand Jury website explained it is clear the U.S. Constitution "intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight."

Campbell explained the citizens grand juries are a constitutional movement.

"We endeavor to teach people about our Constitutional rights, first and foremost. Amendment 1: the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances – Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury," he said.

"A constitutional grand jury actually hands down 'presentments.' That is the correct term. Indictment is a proper term for a court or judicial grand jury to use. Presentments are charges," he said.

To those who say such meetings are ineffectual and lack impact, Campbell said they do not understand the Constitution.

"Any time you assemble real people to conduct a hearing such as grand jury there are those that are afraid we would speak the truth so they in fact will deny we are effective or our actions mean nothing," he said.

Such grand juries, he said, in fact, "are the fourth branch of government."

Grand juries cite Obama for ineligibility, treason

 

[g5000]

Georgia "birther" convicted in plot to seize courthouse, force Obama out of office - CBS News

Huff was stopped by Tennessee officers in April 2010 and told them he was bringing guns into the state from Dallas, Ga., to support efforts to arrest Monroe County officials who refused to indict Obama.

The best part:

Huff choked back tears as he told the jury Friday that he was humiliated because "my government has called me a potential domestic terrorist."

 

[The Original Tree]

1. A sitting president CANNOT be indicted.
-- Official DOJ policy since 1973. Not even Special Counsel, the Southern District of New York (SDNY), nor Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein can change that.

2. SDNY is NOT expert in campaign finance violations and neither is the Clinton appointed district judge. They rarely handle campaign finance cases.
-- The Leftist media and politicians are parroting the self-serving briefs the prosecutors have filed without looking at / reporting actual rules / context that apply.

3 Those ACTUAL rules and context do NOT include Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) or infinite other contracts, payments, arrangements, acts of a private nature, etc. as campaign contributions.
-- This is EXACTLY WHY the left-wing media and politicians do no read / report the actual rules and context.

4. SDNY inclusion of these charges in the Cohen plea deal was a sleazy political and PR attack against the president by an office coordinating with Mueller and aligned with Comey.
-- SDNY knew Cohen would plead. It, therefore, knew its absurd allegations would not be tested in any courtroom — district, circuit or Supreme Court. If they were tested, SDNY would be hammered...But it knew the left-wing media and politicians would use the mere over-the-top allegations from its office, with absolutely nothing more, to claim the president committed campaign felonies. No due process. No assumption of innocence. They knew they couldn’t charge a sitting president. Thus, they convict the president in the press, not only an extreme act of professional misconduct but a violation of the very purpose of the DOJ memos banning the indictment of a sitting president...

5. NDAs involving wholly private matters occurring before the president was even a candidate and completely unrelated to his office cannot legitimately trigger the Constitution's impeachment clause.
-- The history of the clause and its “high crimes and misdemeanors” language make it crystal clear that the office and the president’s duties are not affected in any conceivable way by these earlier private contracts.

As usual, the Witch Hunters and Rah-Rah Liberal media are whipping the snowflakes into a tizzy again only to have their hopes, dreams, and high spirits dashed again...


Mark Levin: A time for truth

.

It's over with but the Putin-Bots like Putin-Bot-G-5000, and Putin-Bot-Lakota are too stupid to realize it.

Just give these fools enough rope to completely discredit themselves and we can make fun of them for decades.

 

[The VOR]

If Lyin' Donald broke the law, he should not be indicted. He should be impeached.

I would not indict him for the hooker bribery thing. I'd wait until Mueller is finished with his investigation. If Crazy Donald is a thoroughly corrupt crook, Mueller will find it, and then not even the GOP Senate will be able to stomach the idea of letting Crooked Donald off the hook.

The GOP Senate is ready to cut bait and run from him soon anyway. They pretty much got all they can get out of him by now, so it's time to save their own asses for the upcoming election in 2020.

 

[Papageorgio]

OP, didn't you far rightwing bastards spend the entire 8 years of Obama's Presidency INSISTING that a sitting President CAN be indicted?

Indictments? I don’t recall that. I recall impeachment not indictments. Do you have a link?

Here you go. Birther forum member 007 getting a hardon about an Obama indictment:

The Audacity of Unawareness... (add your own examples to the list.)

Thank you for posting that one Meister, which brings me to this. We WILL see his "real" birth documentation sooner or later. The pressure is building and the momentum is getting stronger. It will reach critical mass and the documents will HAVE to be released, and I'll bet ANYONE HERE, EVEN THE MODS WHO KEEP MOVING THE TOPIC INTO THE CONSPIRACY THEORY SECTION, that obama is NOT ELIGIBLE to hold the office of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.....

Grand Juries Cite Obama For Ineligibility, Treason

Hundreds of 'presentments' being handed to prosecutors


Posted: May 21, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Hundreds of "presentments" – or accusations assembled by citizen grand juries – are scheduled to be given to courts, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges and legislators across the United States by July 4 alleging that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president and his occupancy in the Oval Office constitutes treason.

The accusations are being assembled by the citizen grand juries that have been meeting in recent weeks around the country. One organization, American Grand Jury, now has posted an online procedure that provides a step-by-step instruction manual for those who are concerned about Obama.

American Grand Jury Editor Bob Campbell's site includes information on the history of grand juries, their powers, rules, evidence, forms, etiquette and how to file the resulting claims.

While there are other groups organizing and holding grand jury meetings, Campbell told WND that his is the largest group, having convened five already along with two state grand juries. It plans to sponsor another half dozen in the next 30 days.

"Sooner or later some court or many courts will formally indict Obama from our presentments or [a] complaint," he said. "Our goal is to convene and conclude 12 to 13 grand juries before July 4 rolls around and to serve our presentments as many as 200 times with courts, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges or legislators across the land.

"The pressure is mounting and someday justice will be served or the country will probably explode from loss of faith in our Constitution," he said.

If those numbers don't produce action, he said, the plans are to double, or triple the numbers, and try again.

One such citizens grand jury met recently in a Chicago suburb, literally in Obama's home territory. There spokesman Richard Keefner told WND, jurors were sworn in, reviewed the evidence and deliberated.

"We all came to a unanimous decision that we felt it should be investigated further and warranted the indictment," he told WND.

The citizens grand jury is just the latest channel through which Americans are raising protests over a president they believe is ineligible to hold that office.

Many of the challenges have come through the courts. WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

And the answer could take only minutes: authorization from the president to Hawaiian officials to release his documentation.

A recent presentment from one of the American Grand Jury meetings said there's not even any question about Obama's eligibility any longer.

"Article II, Section 1 states: 'No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the Untied States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…" says Count One.

"Wherefore, Obama is not a 'natural born Citizen' for the following reasons: 1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH US Citizens. These facts are not in dispute: Under the British Nationality Act 1948, Obama's father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya. Obama's father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father," the charge continues.

"It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama's father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject," it says.

Secondly, the accusation of treason comes from a retired member of the U.S. military officer, Lt. Cmdr. Walter Fitzpatrick III, who has presented his complaint to U.S. Attorney Russell Dedrick in Tennessee, the presentment explains.

In that, he alleged, "Now you [Obama] have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment. Known military criminal actors-command racketeers-are now free in the exercise of military government intent upon destruction of America's constitutional government. We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works."

The American Grand Jury website explained it is clear the U.S. Constitution "intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight."

Campbell explained the citizens grand juries are a constitutional movement.

"We endeavor to teach people about our Constitutional rights, first and foremost. Amendment 1: the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances – Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury," he said.

"A constitutional grand jury actually hands down 'presentments.' That is the correct term. Indictment is a proper term for a court or judicial grand jury to use. Presentments are charges," he said.

To those who say such meetings are ineffectual and lack impact, Campbell said they do not understand the Constitution.

"Any time you assemble real people to conduct a hearing such as grand jury there are those that are afraid we would speak the truth so they in fact will deny we are effective or our actions mean nothing," he said.

Such grand juries, he said, in fact, "are the fourth branch of government."

Grand juries cite Obama for ineligibility, treason

Extreme right, just like the extreme left a bunch of nuts I don’t take seriously and neither does anyone else. Not a chance that he would ever be indicted by the crazies.

 

[easyt65]

There were threads about arresting Obama created, many in fact, right here on USMB.
You can't have an arrest w/o an indictment. So not only are you a rabid far rightwing hack, you're dishonest too.
But I guess those are one in the same.

There ya go again LYING AGAIN in a personal attack about me. You want to rail over someone saying Obama should have been / should be arrested - go for it. Just keep your emotions / TDS in check so you don't throw a tantrum and falsely accuse me anymore.

 

[easyt65]

1. A sitting president CANNOT be indicted.
-- Official DOJ policy since 1973.

That's a POLICY (not a law) that came out of Nixon's DOJ. Oh...

One that has been in effect since 1973, and even Democrats are all about 'precedence'....unless you want to start arguing how 'precedence' really doesn't matter...which should make the individuals who want RoeVsWade repealed happy. ;p

 

[Siete]

With no explicit constitutional provision supporting presidential immunity — and no clear consensus from the framers — we need to turn to case law for answers. In the landmark 1974 case U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court required President Richard Nixon to turn over those parts of his secret Oval Office tape recordings that were relevant to the Watergate criminal investigation. Nixon argued that his executive privilege allowed him to refuse. But the Supreme Court disagreed. In a unanimous decision, it determined that “the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice” are more important than shielding the presidency. Although this ruling did not deal with a criminal indictment of Nixon, it did establish an important principle: The president is not above the law.

In the 1997 case Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court came a step closer to establishing that presidents could be criminally indicted, ruling that President Bill Clinton could be sued in civil court over sexual advances he allegedly made while governor of Arkansas. Clinton’s lawyers argued that the president’s participation in a trial would imperil the executive branch because it would distract him from his complex and numerous responsibilities. But the court decided that this principle was outweighed by the requirement that litigants be able to seek justice when they are wronged. Clinton v. Jones dealt with a civil case, not a criminal one, but the court’s logic can and should extend to criminal cases, where the need to uphold justice and the rule of law is even more critical.

At the same time Clinton v. Jones was decided, independent counsel Ken Starr was investigating other alleged misconduct by Clinton. Although his team ultimately decided to issue a report to Congress instead, Starr did consider indicting Clinton, and his office produced a memo arguing that it was constitutionally permissible. Not surprisingly, the Clinton administration disagreed. In 2000, Clinton’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memo that essentially reiterated his legal team’s argument from Clinton v. Jones, now in the context of a criminal case. This argument — although it clashes with the Supreme Court’s rulings in U.S. v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones — has become de facto Justice Department policy.


got all that COMMIE65 ?