Dems want to nuke DOJ policy barring presidential prosecutions

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...W5A?li=BBnbcA1


Special Counsel Robert Mueller said last month that charging President Trump with a crime “was not an option we could consider” because of the Justice Department policy barring the prosecution of sitting presidents.

Democrats are now talking about finding a way to change that.
“Congress should make it clear that presidents can be indicted for criminal activity, including obstruction of justice," Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic presidential candidate, recently proposed.
WARREN PROPOSES LAW SAYING A PRESIDENT CAN BE INDICTED
And other congressional Democrats have since said they are considering whether the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel 1973 memorandum against charging a sitting president should be revoked -- though no legislation has been introduced just yet.
“It's fair to say that one of the options we should consider is revisiting that Department of Justice rule so you don't have a rogue and lawless president immunized from criminal prosecution,” New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, told The Hill.
Another lawmaker, Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly, a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, suggested that a measure revoking the policy could be included in some sort of spending package or authorization bill.
“I guarantee you it will be a topic of discussion,” Connolly told The Hill.
While Mueller in his report said his investigation found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, the special counsel declined to issue a conclusion in the report about whether Trump obstructed justice through his comments and actions related to the investigation. The president repeatedly referred to the probe as a "witch hunt" and allegedly sought to have Mueller removed -- but he never did, and Trump has recently disputed that he even sought the special counsel's ouster.
“Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider,” Mueller said during his public statement last month, adding that “it would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.”
After the release of the Mueller report, Attorney General Bill Barr said he determined no crime had been committed by the president, but Democrats have argued Trump would have been charged with obstruction had he not been president. Republicans, meanwhile, have countered that Trump could not have been charged with obstruction since Mueller determined there was no underlying crime of conspiring with the Russians.

The fresh chatter about upending the DOJ guidance amounts to the latest Democratic bid to reexamine federal policy toward alleged wrongdoing of sitting presidents.
Last month, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and other Democrats introduced the “No President Is Above the Law Act.” The sponsors said in a news release at the time that it would pause the statute of limitations for any federal offense committed by a sitting president and “ensure that presidents can be held accountable for criminal conduct just like every other American and not use the presidency to avoid legal consequences.”
"No person can be permitted to evade accountability for their actions just because they happen to be president," Nadler said. "I have concerns with the Justice Department interpretation that a sitting president cannot be indicted, but if that is the policy, a president who commits a crime before or during their term in office, could exploit this loophole and avoid prosecution just because the statute of limitations has run out. This is unacceptable. The presidency is not a get-out-of-jail-free card."
Even though Barr said he determined no crime had been committed by the president, several Democratic presidential candidates are now indicating on the campaign trail that they would support a DOJ investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice if they win the White House in 2020.
California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris said last week she believes the only reason Mueller didn’t recommend prosecuting Trump was because of the Justice Department’s policy. In an interview with NPR, Harris said that once out of office, Trump would be subject to charges – and she suggested the Justice Department in a Harris presidency would pursue them.
“I believe that they would have no choice and that they should, yes,” Harris said.

Another 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, said last week that if elected president, he could also support a Justice Department criminal investigation into Trump.
“To the extent that there’s an obstruction case, then yes, DOJ’s got to deal with it,” Buttigieg said in an interview with The Atlantic published Thursday.
Trump, during an interview that aired Sunday night on ABC News, denied being worried about being prosecuted once he leaves office.
“Did nothing wrong,” Trump said. “There was no collusion.”


DPST's cannot let go of their specious and fallacious Russian collusion narrative.
Even to chasing him with persecution/prosecution after he leaves the Oval Office.

They best be careful - the pendulum swings - and they may well be a position to regret this action in some near future.

True story:

Pennsylvania Avenue had never seen an equestrian quite like him before. At West Point, Grant’s skill in the saddle wowed his peers and instructors alike. “In horsemanship,” said James Longstreet (a classmate and future Confederate general), “…he was noted as the most proficient in the Academy. In fact, rider and horse held together like the fabled centaur.”

Rowdy steeds didn’t frighten the 18th president. On the contrary, Grant rather liked breaking them in. According to his son, Fredrick, he “preferred to ride the most unmanageable mount, the largest and most powerful one. Oftentimes I saw him ride a beast that none had approached.”

Yet, masterful as he was, nobody would mistake Grant for the world’s safest driver. In 1866, his reputation in this department took a serious hit. One newspaper claimed that, at a New York City political event, the General instigated—and won—a high-speed coach race through Central Park. He soon dismissed this story as being “almost without foundation.” True, the future President had been asked to take the reins. But, in Grant’s words, there was “no fast driving or talk of it.”

He couldn’t wave away another, more infamous incident, however. During his tenure in the Oval Office, a slew of accidents forced D.C. authorities to start cracking down on speeders. For policeman William West, the last straw came when a horrible accident took place on his block. “[A] woman with a 6-year-old child had been seriously injured on West’s corner by a driver of fast horses,” The Washington Post explained.

The very next day, West caught Grant’s buggy booking it at “a furious pace” past the corner of M and 13th Streets. America’s top elected official was almost immediately pulled over.

“Mister President,” said West, “I want to tell you that you were violating the law by driving at reckless speed. Your fast driving, sir, has set the example for a lot of other gentlemen. It is endangering the lives of the people who have to cross the street in this locality. Only this evening a lady was knocked down by one of the racing teams.” Duly reprimanded, Grant apologized and promised that it wouldn’t happen again.

Less than twenty-four hours later, it did.

West again caught the Commander in Chief flying at breakneck speed over the same stretch of road. “Do you think, officer, that I was violating the speed laws?” asked Grant.

“I certainly do, Mr. President,” replied West. After reminding Grant of his broken vow, he added, “I am very sorry, Mr. President, to have to do it, for you are the nation’s chief executive, but my duty is plain, sir: I shall have to place you under arrest!”

Grant's exact response has been lost to history—though many claim that he reacted admirably, encouraging West to “Do your duty, my good man.” West escorted him to the police station, where the leader who had helped win the Civil War was swiftly booked and fined.

Fortunately, there were no hard feelings on either man's part. A fellow horse-lover, West ultimately befriended the president. The pair would often get together and, during one of their many chats, the lawman made an awkward admission: before joining the force, he’d been a speed demon himself.

(source)

Pocahontas should be prosecuted for being a total fraud.

Of course, if they changed the law now (a policy actually) anything that Trump, Obama, or Clinton would be grandfathered.

this thing goes back to Nixon.

many people wanted Nixon prosecuted but Ford pardoned him.

there seems to be an unspoken rule about not prosecuting former presidents for certain inappropriate actions during their term in office.

that seems to be holding until now.

i seem to recall that Barr stated that per Mueller .. the DOJ policy did not factor in his decision not to recommend indictment. Has Mueller denied this? Not that i know of.

let's see Mueller testify under oath that the DOJ policy did factor in his report's non-conclusion of obstruction.

the democrats claim Mueller gave them a roadmap to impeach. so let them follow it to it's logical results ..





BAHHAHAAAAA

i seem to recall that Barr stated that per Mueller .. the DOJ policy did not factor in his decision not to recommend indictment. Has Mueller denied this? Not that i know of.

let's see Mueller testify under oath that the DOJ policy did factor in his report's non-conclusion of obstruction.

the democrats claim Mueller gave them a roadmap to impeach. so let them follow it to it's logical results ..



BAHHAHAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

this is a better one.

If the Democraps start impeachment proceeding Mulehead will be subpoenaed by the Republicans on the committee and that fucker sure as hell doesn't want the grilling he will get and deserve that will expose this partisan hack job.

Of course, if they changed the law now (a policy actually) anything that Trump, Obama, or Clinton would be grandfathered. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

We are all well aware that :In the United States, Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.



They are all immune to prosecution under a change in the law. However, a change in DOJ procedure and Rules is not necessaryily the same as a change in the Law passed by Congress.

Let the House pass whatever persecutorial/prosecutorial acts against Trump they wish. Cannot prosecute due to ex post facto. Won't get by the Senate, anyway, thank Heaven.

of course they do more do as I say not as I do ,,,,,,,maybe 1/1024