https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/08/poli...rt-mueller-interview-rudy-giuliani/index.html https://www.npr.org/2018/08/08/6367...-muellers-office-on-potential-trump-interview
It's off again , time for the grand jury. Trump officially rejects Robert Mueller’s interview request because of questions about obstruction: report Update: The New York Times reports that Trump’s legal team rejected Mueller’s interview request and instead offered to participate in an interview if the scope was narrowed. “Mr. Trump’s lawyers did not reject an interview outright but included the narrower counteroffer, one person familiar with the response said,” the Times reported. “However, the person said that Mr. Trump’s lawyers did not want him answering questions about whether he obstructed justice.”
There is only one way to stop that strange nominee that champions "The Unitary Executive," something wholly incompatible with a democratic Republic. Kavanaugh's vision of the Executive is akin to that of a king or a dictator in a totalitarian regime. How he came up with these absurd notions seems entirely political and self-serving in origin, as his bizarre idea runs counter to the Founders' vision for the Executive. They wanted nothing to do with "A Unitary Executive." They had just loosed themselves from the shackles of King George. But the Founders did not have to worry about the president overstepping his authority, because it was extremely limited by a very small federal government in the early days of the Republic, something absolutely not true in 2018. What can't be understood is how Kavanaugh's argument, which rests on the flimsiest of grounds, could be accepted by any thinking person.* Kavanaugh has said, " We should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. ... [the] indictment and trial of a sitting President would cripple the federal government.”** Oh, Really! Although few think the President should be 'burdened" with showing up in traffic court, contesting misdemeanors and such, there are some criminal activities the atonement for which should indeed burden a President. And why not! To argue that the President is irreplaceable, and therefore can't be bothered with indictments and defending him- or herself from serious accusations because they are simply too busy and have no time to be prosecuted while in office, or that their prosecution would "cripple the federal government," is absurd on its face. We know from more or less constant experience, the Executive is perfectly, and nearly instantaneously -- a matter of hours-- replaceable, either temporarily or permanently, as the occasion may call for. The country will not miss a beat. Consider all of the provisions in the Constitution to handle just such instances: our many assassinations, wounded, dead, dying, ignored, and mentally incapacitated presidents. How is it possible that the Senate could even entertain the possibility of confirming such a nitwit as Kavanaugh? But we elected Mr. Trump, so why not put a nitwit on the Court, you say. If anything is heartening about the prospect of a butt licker like Brett Kavenaugh on the Court it might be that he indicated, indirectly, that he thinks the President can be indicted when he called for Congress to enact a statute forbidding it. But that's even worse! At least without a statute, the option remains open. If the Senate confirms his appointment, and it is immaterial whether it is before or after the Mid-Term election, he can't be stopped. He could be seated on the Court before the new Congress takes over in January. __________________ *Kavanaugh has his defenders of course. The President, who does not want to be indicted for Money Laundering, Tax Evasion, Fraudulent Use of a Charitable Foundation, Violation of the Emoluments Clause and Obstruction of Justice, is one of them. Another fellow nitwit ready to come to Kavanaugh's defense is one Steven Calabresi. Calabresi wrote an article in "The Hill" defending Kavanaugh, [see http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/399217-brett-kavanaugh-and-the-unitary-executive]. But Calabresi failed to mention Kavanaugh's suggestion that the Court's 8-0 ruling in Nixon might have been wrongly decided. Yikes!!! Here in fact is all you need to know about Brett Kavanaugh, how extreme his views are regarding executive power, and how dangerous to the democratic future of the Republic he might prove to be. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/brett-kavanaugh-is.../564764/ **Kavanaugh, B.M., Minnesota Law Review [93:1454] 2009.
You conveniently do not mention the fact that - although there are varying opinions about whether a president can be indicted- that the Justice Departments own internal opinion is that a president cannot be indicted so the DOJ has a written established rule against indicting a president. Note further, that Mueller is not an independent counsel withing the meaning of the indendent counsel act (which expired) and is not an independent counsel appointed by Congress. He was appointed as an independent counsel under the authority of the DOJ and reports Rosenstein and is fully bound by DOJ rules. So to indict Trump would be yet another GLARING example of where the DOJ set aside/violated established department rules for the purpose of getting Trump. Not pretty. Don't ever, ever forget though that I am 100% in favor of Mueller going for it. In any case, indicting Trump only gets him so much anyway. He gets a chance to hear Trump claim Executive Privilege and/or the Fifth and then say nothing. So if he already has sufficient evidence to make his case without Trump walking in to the trap then he should go for it. If he is using the indictment threat to compel testimony that he could not get because Trump refuses to sit with him, well that is a dicey move. Trump shows up and pleads Executive Privilege at the grand jury and then Mueller is locked into a legal process where it is full legal from then on out. And he doesnt have the evidence or the law on his side on all the various appeals. If he does, let's go pussy. Make my day!!!
To indict Trump there would have to be an independent special prosecutor appointed. The DOJ couldn't do it (Conflict of interest). I don't think Trump will be indicted until he is impeached and removed from office, and maybe never. That will depend on what Pence's political ambitions are. He might be subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury however. I doubt it though. I think Mueller will turn his report over to Congress and let them decide how to proceed. Not until after the new Congress is seated however. Without a pardon from Pence, Mr. Trump is in a heap of trouble. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg .
As I said to Usual Tard the other day, it is interesting the way- as we get down wire on whether Mueller will actually indict/prosecute Mueller- he, you, and the rest of your ilk suddenly switch over to all the reasons why Mueller is precluded/or cannot indict him. This- after months and months of the lefties here posting article after article about how everyone is flipping on Trump and Mueller is going to prosecute him and put him away. Let's see the indictment and the prosecution and the conviction after months of all the scary talk and reminders that Mueller has tons of evidence on Trump that will bring him down on the the collusion and the obstruction- not some frigging condo deal or related taxes in Crapistan ten years ago. Let's see it. Let's go. Don't weasel around with me. You suddenly fancy yourself as the little law professor now. Where's the beef on the prosecution? Despite your recent born again experience about the law after learning how to google, some of us have know the legal landscape since the beginning. We also see the new little crabwalk/weasel walk that is shaping up where - not only is trump's presidency not legitimate because of his electoral election- but you, Usual Tard, and others are beginning to make the case that the Supreme Court will not be legitimate either because it will have Trump appointments. Yep, that's the new little kabuki dance shaping up.