Policy Is As Policy Does?
1973 DOJ Memo - "Amenability of the President, Vice President, and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office" - September 24, 1973
A Watergate-era DOJ policy determination that criminally prosecuting a sitting President would violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers...
Following up on A Cloud Of Stigma and Opprobrium? Regardless of your political leanings, whether you're blue, red, or just fed up with politicians, the MSM and their BS...
2000 Office Of Legal Counsel (OLC) Opinion - "A Sitting Presidents Amenalbility to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution" - October 16, 2000
Memorandum opinion for the US Attorney General re-affirming the 1973 DOJ memo. The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
The Constitution “permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available,” and such evidence may be used to charge non-immune defendants.
The Constitution, does not address the possibility of criminal charges against a sitting president. It only asserts that the president can be impeached for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” — and only the House of Representatives has the power of impeachment.
Thus, how can either the aforementioned DOJ policy determination or OLC opinion be binding? And in what way, shape or form is "policy" long standing or not, considered Constitutional, as in a part of the Constitution?
We call bullshit, lacking a process to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing, or for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” leaves room for any Manchurian Candidate to openly run this country into the ground.
As long as nobody complains loud enough, the ubiquitous "they" will make up the rules as they go along. Policy is not law, and as Forrest Gump might say: policy is as policy does.
A Watergate-era DOJ policy determination that criminally prosecuting a sitting President would violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers...
"criminal prosecution . . . would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties."Once again, not to be mistaken for Tuesday's With Morrie, it's Tuesdays With Trump...
Following up on A Cloud Of Stigma and Opprobrium? Regardless of your political leanings, whether you're blue, red, or just fed up with politicians, the MSM and their BS...
Memorandum opinion for the US Attorney General re-affirming the 1973 DOJ memo. The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
The Constitution “permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available,” and such evidence may be used to charge non-immune defendants.
The Constitution, does not address the possibility of criminal charges against a sitting president. It only asserts that the president can be impeached for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” — and only the House of Representatives has the power of impeachment.
"The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing." - Robert MuellerThe Nattering One muses... neither the 1973 DOJ policy determination, nor the 2000 OLC opinion: are a part of the Constitution. Nor have these documents or official proclamations of "policy" been codified by Legislative or decreed by Executive branch, or adjudicated by Judicial branch; as the law of the land.
Thus, how can either the aforementioned DOJ policy determination or OLC opinion be binding? And in what way, shape or form is "policy" long standing or not, considered Constitutional, as in a part of the Constitution?
We call bullshit, lacking a process to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing, or for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” leaves room for any Manchurian Candidate to openly run this country into the ground.
As long as nobody complains loud enough, the ubiquitous "they" will make up the rules as they go along. Policy is not law, and as Forrest Gump might say: policy is as policy does.
Comments