Blog powered by Typepad

« An absolute 'must read'! | Main | I know, I know, I keep on promising but nothing much happens but stick around »

Thursday, 30 May 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mueller has shown himself as another Swamp Creature. He knew going in that his role was "hit man" for the coup. That media event he gave yesterday was awkward and he was unusually nervous for a stone faced cold as ice prosecutor. He is refusing to testify before either house of Congress. He has resigned. He will not appear. The House Dems are begging him to come before them. Senate Judiciary Chairman, Republican Graham, issued an open invitation over a month ago. He will not come. He is in jeopardy and he knows it. So he leaves a cloud of smoke behind him as he exits Washington. Coward.

So, it's up to House Dems to begin impeachment if they dare. I say come ahead on commie libs.

He looked like he was enjoying the experience...not!

There's plenty of evidence Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice. However, it's DOJ policy that a sitting president can't be legally indicted. What Mueller actually said is that Trump was not found innocent of criminal acts, but it's up to the House to charge him and the Senate to serve as judge, as our constitution requires. House leadership has made it clear that won't happen this close to an election. So relax.

You have a strange interpretation of law, Bob, I worry about you sometimes!


"However, it's DOJ policy that a sitting president can't be legally indicted."

Come now Bob, let's accuratize that sentence shall we?

Specifically the word "legally." (You might Bob take a quick look at the dictionary to refresh your memory before we proceed.)

Come to think of it Bob, maybe you ought refresh yourself with the dictionary meaning of the word "policy" too.

All? That above is in my humble estimation, a good starting point from which to try tho build a "legally" workable case.

Not particularly useful policywise however.


From the horse's mouth:

"Date of Issuance:
Monday, October 16, 2000

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."

If you want to download the whole policy opinion it's available:

Don't have to click the link Bob.

In about the sixth grade I learned the DoJ is a function of the Executive branch. And on my first job (delivering pharmacy prescribed meds to mostly old people, me riding my bicycle) I learned bosses [executives] don't direct actions against themselves.

Now a bad rating from the Better Business Bureau [Congress] could have some sorta effect I would give ya.

Well Bob I got to thinking it'd probably be in my interests not to have you moping around your neighborhood the next few days possibly leading to some constitutional crisis of your own so I went ahead and click the link.

Right of the top I noted "Memorandum of Opinion."

What I did not note was a statute title. Right at the top of the US Code list there's a guidance paragraph laying out what the requirements for something to satisfy being legal under US Law is for there to be a statute title and accompanying nomenclature.

So I humbly request of you Bob, statute?

Whitewall, of course Mueller was awkward and nervous. He had failed to provide what Hilary wanted him to provide, and we all know how suicidal people get when they displease her, allegedly.


I'll admit my wording above was incorrect. Correction:

However, it's DOJ policy that a sitting president can't be indicted.

Your hairsplitting is suspiciously lawyerly.

Suspiciously lawyerly Bob?

What, the delivering meds by bicycle or the part about you moping Bob?

There's actually an easy remedy for all of us, no matter which aisle each of us prefer, subpoena his smug ass. Matter of fact I'm involved in discussions to write such a recommendation which will travel certified to both my Senators as well as South Carolina's.

I'd write New York's Nadler too if I thought it'd do any good. But something tells me the House Dems don't want Mueller questioned by other than themselves. At the risk of sounding lawyerly I call bullshit.

Too Bob, there is a remedy for disagreeable policy - pass a law. In the event of a veto, override it.

It is policy, Bob. And drop the word 'can't'.

The OLC helps and guides the DOJ members in their daily jobs. Their guidance is not law and can be changed by the Attorney General.

The opinion is that prosecuting a president would cause constitutional issues and is a fair point. But regardless, it wasn’t Mueller's decision to make. His job was to investigate and produce a conclusion.

Mueller's job was to prepare a report for the AG. The AG is then to take the conclusions of that report to the Judiciary Committee.

§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.


(1) A Special Counsel shall be provided all appropriate resources by the Department of Justice. Within the first 60 days of his or her appointment, the Special Counsel shall develop a proposed budget for the current fiscal year with the assistance of the Justice Management Division for the Attorney General's review and approval. Based on the proposal, the Attorney General shall establish a budget for the operations of the Special Counsel. The budget shall include a request for assignment of personnel, with a description of the qualifications needed.

(2) Thereafter, 90 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Special Counsel shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation, and provide a budget request for the following year. The Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year.

(b)Notification of significant events. The Special Counsel shall notify the Attorney General of events in the course of his or her investigation in conformity with the Departmental guidelines with respect to Urgent Reports.

(c)Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -

(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;

(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and

(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsel’s investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.

(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.

(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.

Nothing...let me repeat that...NOTHING prevented Bob Mueller from recommending prosecution to Barr. It would have been Barr's decision whether the OLC guidance applied or not. He certainly would have or should have conferred with Mueller on that subject but, ultimately, it was Barr's decision to make.

Here is a first rate take on Mueller's rank partisanship:


Aren't you from around the same parts as that fella who wanted to argue what the meaning of "is" is?

Is (in the most common sense) everybody here a lawyer?

Depends Bob, on what the meaning of "same parts" is.

If, a state bordering on the west of Big Muddy but east of Oklahoma then yeah I reckon I do - if however its a geological thing then no, no I don't.

There is no contradiction whatsoever however - Hillbillies is a geological condition - Gangsters is not.

I'll call Whitewall, your cartoon and raise.

Incidentally, Justice spokeswoman 'Kelly Kupec' with Special Counsel's Office Peter Carr purportedly released a statement (I type it thus owing to so far, I've been unable to locate said statement bearing a letterhead [pdf put another way] Anyway the purported statement allegedly states:

"The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC [Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements."

Attempting to clarify the above statement by parsing the content of Mueller's televised address of yesterday:

"[W]e are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court. [...] And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge. [...] I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith."

Isn't particularly clarifying either.

The comments to this entry are closed.