Considering that "Payback" will be expected from a fgn government for providing dirt to a candidate, should Knowingly accepting that dirt be illegal?

Considering that "Payback" will be expected from a fgn government for providing dirt to a candidate,

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 75.0%
  • No

    Votes: 1 25.0%

  • Total voters
    4
May 2012
68,016
13,515
By the wall
#2
Why do you assume they are going to want payback?

There may be many reasons they give dirt on a candidate.

Many people say the reason Putin interfered in our elections was because Hillary, as SOS, helped to organize protests against his re-election bid.

It was pure revenge and had nothing to do with Trump.
 
May 2019
2,218
2,415
midwest
#3
Why do you assume they are going to want payback?

There may be many reasons they give dirt on a candidate.

Many people say the reason Putin interfered in our elections was because Hillary, as SOS, helped to organize protests against his re-election bid.

It was pure revenge and had nothing to do with Trump.
You really need to comprehend right is in front of you.
:cool:


ROBERT S. MUELLER III, the special counsel: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel’s office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. ....

.... Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cybertechniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks.

The releases were designed and times to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. ....

.... That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. ....

....And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president. ....

.... And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. ....

more here: Full Transcript of Mueller’s Statement on Russia Investigation
 
May 2012
68,016
13,515
By the wall
#4
You really need to comprehend right is in front of you.
:cool:


ROBERT S. MUELLER III, the special counsel: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel’s office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. ....

.... Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cybertechniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks.

The releases were designed and times to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. ....

.... That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. ....

....And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president. ....

.... And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. ....

more here: Full Transcript of Mueller’s Statement on Russia Investigation
Where in the constitution does it say you can't bring charges against a sitting president or prosecute him?
 
May 2019
2,218
2,415
midwest
#5
Where in the constitution does it say you can't bring charges against a sitting president or prosecute him?
Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution



A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution

Date of Issuance:
Monday, October 16, 2000

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

Attachment: op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Updated December 10, 2018
:cool:
 
May 2012
68,016
13,515
By the wall
#6
Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution



A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution

Date of Issuance:
Monday, October 16, 2000

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

Attachment: op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Updated December 10, 2018
:cool:
That isn't part of the Constitution.
 
May 2012
68,016
13,515
By the wall
#8
the bull59 said:


Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution



Slow down. Take a breath. Then re-read my reply.
:cool:
I don't have to.

I have the constitution memorized and nowhere in there does it claim what you says it does which is why you are providing another source.

Nothing, nowhere, in the Constitution does it say you cannot prosecute a sitting president.

In fact, in Jones v. Clinton the supreme court expressly said that you can and although that was for a civil case there is no reason to think they wouldn't extend that to criminal.
 
May 2019
2,218
2,415
midwest
#9
I don't have to.

I have the constitution memorized and nowhere in there does it claim what you says it does which is why you are providing another source.

Nothing, nowhere, in the Constitution does it say you cannot prosecute a sitting president.

In fact, in Jones v. Clinton the supreme court expressly said that you can and although that was for a civil case there is no reason to think they wouldn't extend that to criminal.
Keyword there is CIVIL.

As to you lack of reading comprehension I quote:

Article II, § 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment ....

Getting back to the DOJ reg (since the special prosecutor law was allowed to expire) here is what Robert S. Mueller III said about that. Again, I quote:

.... The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. ....
:cool:
 
May 2012
68,016
13,515
By the wall
#10
Keyword there is CIVIL.

As to you lack of reading comprehension I quote:

Article II, § 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment ....

Getting back to the DOJ reg (since the special prosecutor law was allowed to expire) here is what Robert S. Mueller III said about that. Again, I quote:

.... The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. ....
:cool:
Yes you can impeach them per the constitution and that is where it stops.

All the rest of your bullshit are DOJ rules which are not even laws.