• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president, Giuliani tells Fox News

zimmer said:
Mark Levin has been stating this for some time... using Justice Dept guidelines... and the Media just did not want to hear it.

There are going to be some mightily pissed off and disappointed Leftists tonight. Their hot-air balloon crash landed.

Meanwhile back at the ranch...
Click to expand...

First of all, you gotta believe Rudy and think he knows what he is talking about. Based on his performance to date, I think he aint got a clue.
 
Mycroft said:
Yes. You don't agree?
Click to expand...
You think a man... who has been shrieking WITCH HUNT on a daily basis... is cooperating with the inquisition?

Can you.... elaborate?

Barnacle said:
Comey told him 3 times he's not under investigation. So, what's your problem?!?
Click to expand...

Not exactly what was said, but those details aren’t relevant to obstruction of justice claims.
 
Fenton said:
Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president, Giuliani tells Fox News

Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president, Giuliani tells Fox News | Fox News


President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, told Fox News on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller has told the president's legal team he will follow Justice Department guidance and not seek an indictment against Trump.

Giuliani, himself a former federal prosecutor and mayor of New York City, also told Fox News that Mueller's investigators have not responded to five information requests from the president's team. That has forced Trump's legal team to push off making a decision about whether the president will sit for an interview with the special counsel -- a decision they had hoped to reach by Thursday.

The precedent that federal prosecutors cannot indict a sitting president is laid out in a 1999 Justice Department memo. Giuliani told Fox News that Mueller has no choice but to follow its guidance.

"This case is essentially over," Giuliani said. "They're just in denial."


:lamo Aww that's tough luck.
Click to expand...

I believe Giuliani to be a plant working against Trump as he has, for a while now, had an issue with keeping his mouth shut.
 
Fenton said:
Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president, Giuliani tells Fox News

Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president, Giuliani tells Fox News | Fox News


President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, told Fox News on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller has told the president's legal team he will follow Justice Department guidance and not seek an indictment against Trump.

Giuliani, himself a former federal prosecutor and mayor of New York City, also told Fox News that Mueller's investigators have not responded to five information requests from the president's team. That has forced Trump's legal team to push off making a decision about whether the president will sit for an interview with the special counsel -- a decision they had hoped to reach by Thursday.

The precedent that federal prosecutors cannot indict a sitting president is laid out in a 1999 Justice Department memo. Giuliani told Fox News that Mueller has no choice but to follow its guidance.

"This case is essentially over," Giuliani said. "They're just in denial."


:lamo Aww that's tough luck.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what most of us with knowledge of the matter have been speculating.

Presidents can not be indicted because an indictment would cause chaos in the chain of command. That's why both in Watergate and Lewinsky the presidents were referred for impeachment in the House - where impeachment IS the indictment.
 
MovingPictures said:
Yeah, that's what most of us with knowledge of the matter have been speculating.

Presidents can not be indicted because an indictment would cause chaos in the chain of command. That's why both in Watergate and Lewinsky the presidents were referred for impeachment in the House - where impeachment IS the indictment.
Click to expand...

Just how much "knowledge" of the matter do you have?
 
Cardinal said:
Not indicting a sitting President is a tradition. It's not specifically spelled out in the Constitution that you cannot do so. It remains to to this day an untested theory.
Click to expand...

Article 2 is not a tradition. It's the friggin LAW
 
zimmer said:
There are going to be some mightily pissed off and disappointed Leftists tonight. Their hot-air balloon crash landed..
Click to expand...

It's been widely discussed since the start of his presidency that the only practical way for Trump to be removed is through impeachment. Are you saying you aren't aware of that? Or are you just attacking men of straw? Really, this seems over-the-top absurd. 25th was a more far-fetched way, but was also still in the news.

If he's evidenced to have committed a crime, it's up to the House. It's one of the reasons the next election is held to be so important. Even then, it would need to be really egregious I assume, for the corrupt partisan Republican senate to take appropriate action.

Impeached by House.
Tried by Senate.

Are you saying it took that dumb-as-a-rock moron, Rudi Giuliani, with his chattering teeth and failing memory, to remind you of something that's been discussed widely in the news since forever? Really?
 
Floridafan said:
Do you recall that Trump specifically told the Russian ambassador that he fired Comey to end the Russian investigation?
Click to expand...

Nope; maybe to take some pressure off, but nothing about ending the Russia investigation ... but I do remember Trump calling Comey “crazy, a real nut job"

:lol:
 
JANFU said:
Yeah I believe Rudi, and that the President according to the Founders is above the Law.
Click to expand...

Do you know about the DOJ guideline prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president?
 
Cardinal said:
Sure, and I agree. But that conversation probably didn't happen just the same.
Click to expand...

ROTFLOL... well... Mueller can come out and contradict Giuliani... ROTFLOL.

Let’s, for argument sake, say it didn’t happen... Mueller admitted no such thing...it reminds me of the exchange after the Vietnam War, where Leftists aided the enemy:

"'You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,' said the American colonel. The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. 'That may be so,' he replied, 'but it is also irrelevant.'"
— Colonel Harry G. Summers Jr. and Colonel Tu, April 1975.
Click to expand...

And there you have it...
You see, it is irrelevant.

Here is why...

It might be hardball politics, but it is not even that... as this should have been known by every citizen, every school boy and girl in the land. The media failed its most basic job... to inform.*

It was not known, until today.

The media can put down their Democrat Pom-Poms.

Fabricated or not... it is irrelevant.

*And Democrats wasted a year and a lot of emotional energy. That’s the silver lining.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
You think a man... who has been shrieking WITCH HUNT on a daily basis... is cooperating with the inquisition?

Can you.... elaborate?



Not exactly what was said, but those details aren’t relevant to obstruction of justice claims.
Click to expand...



Ever heard Mueller's witch hunters announce the WH is not cooperating with their inquisition?!?
 
vesper said:
Article 2 is not a tradition. It's the friggin LAW
Click to expand...

Okay, spell out for me where it says that impeachment is the only means for removing a sitting President.
 
zimmer said:
ROTFLOL... well... Mueller can come out and contradict Giuliani... ROTFLOL.

Let’s, for argument sake, say it didn’t happen... Mueller admitted no such thing...it reminds me of the exchange after the Vietnam War...
Click to expand...

It sounds like you have an amazing story to tell. You should tell it to your grandkids.
 
Fenton said:
Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president, Giuliani tells Fox News

Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president, Giuliani tells Fox News | Fox News


President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, told Fox News on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller has told the president's legal team he will follow Justice Department guidance and not seek an indictment against Trump.

Giuliani, himself a former federal prosecutor and mayor of New York City, also told Fox News that Mueller's investigators have not responded to five information requests from the president's team. That has forced Trump's legal team to push off making a decision about whether the president will sit for an interview with the special counsel -- a decision they had hoped to reach by Thursday.

The precedent that federal prosecutors cannot indict a sitting president is laid out in a 1999 Justice Department memo. Giuliani told Fox News that Mueller has no choice but to follow its guidance.

"This case is essentially over," Giuliani said. "They're just in denial."


:lamo Aww that's tough luck.
Click to expand...

Giuliani said that Mueller believes that the Justice Dept. cannot indict a sitting President not that he won't. Big difference. Which doesn't put Trump in the clear by any means. So if anyone here is in denial it's Rudy. Rudy should really just shut his yap as he has already gotten his boss into enough trouble as it is.
 
Floridafan said:
Do you recall that Trump specifically told the Russian ambassador that he fired Comey to end the Russian investigation?
Click to expand...

It was a counter-intelligence investigation. Not a criminal justice investigation.
Thus, no justice was being sought, thus it could not be obstructed.
A president can of course end an intelligence investigation.
 
vesper said:
There is only one way to remove a sitting president. ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And it is provided in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
You can't even get that right!

There are at least two provisions in the Constitution. Or as you write TWO!!!!!!!!!! Did you not read the Constitution?
In addition to impeachment, there is also the 25th amendment, section 4.

Vesper, I'll add you to the list of people who were ignorant of the fact that the ways in which to remove a sitting president have been widely reported, and discussed ad infinitum on this forum, for months, basically since Trump took office.

This is how many Trump supporters get their reputation for being ignorant, ill-informed, and easily led around by right wing media. Guiliani repeats something that is common knowledge, and you're taking it hook line and sinker that this is news. Then you **** up your facts in public, to boot.

Try harder.
 
Cardinal said:
Okay, spell out for me where it says that impeachment is the only means for removing a sitting President.
Click to expand...

It is the only way to remove a sitting President, unless you think the 25th Amendment could be used... ROTFLOL, and we had Leftists here keyed up about that in a thread specifically about it.

Here: https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...-amendment-remove-president-trump-office.html

Because it is a political act, the framers made the Senate responsible for removal, and with a high, 2/3rds bar to boot.

Think if it could be done by whim of say... a Deep State special counsel protecting a series of felonious coup types? You see, we would be like some 3rd world ****hole... because Democrats would use it to oust folks they didn’t like... Like Trump.

The framers were wise... they could see what a perverted group of individuals might try.
 
Athanasius68 said:
It was a counter-intelligence investigation. Not a criminal justice investigation. Thus, no justice was being sought, thus it could not be obstructed. A president can of course end an intelligence investigation.
Click to expand...
Quote the law that says obstruction is only for a criminal investigation.
Then tell us how the Muller investigation has indicted 13 people on over 100 criminal charges, and how this means it's not also a criminal investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)#Criminal_charges

Still going on too.
 
zimmer said:
ROTFLOL... well... Mueller can come out and contradict Giuliani... ROTFLOL.

Let’s, for argument sake, say it didn’t happen... Mueller admitted no such thing...it reminds me of the exchange after the Vietnam War, where Leftists aided the enemy:



And there you have it...
You see, it is irrelevant.

Here is why...

It might be hardball politics, but it is not even that... as this should have been known by every citizen, every school boy and girl in the land. The media failed its most basic job... to inform.*

It was not known, until today.

The media can put down their Democrat Pom-Poms.

Fabricated or not... it is irrelevant.

*And Democrats wasted a year and a lot of emotional energy. That’s the silver lining.
Click to expand...

Oh my god these people actually think Trump is now in the clear

I go through a range of emotions, but the surprising part? I end on pity.
 
Mach said:
You can't even get that right!

There are at least two provisions in the Constitution. Or as you write TWO!!!!!!!!!! Did you not read the Constitution?
In addition to impeachment, there is also the 25th amendment, section 4.

Vesper, I'll add you to the list of people who were ignorant of the fact that the ways in which to remove a sitting president have been widely reported, and discussed ad infinitum on this forum, for months, basically since Trump took office.

This is how many Trump supporters get their reputation for being ignorant, ill-informed, and easily led around by right wing media. Guiliani repeats something that is common knowledge, and you're taking it hook line and sinker that this is news. Then you **** up your facts in public, to boot.

Try harder.
Click to expand...

The only other means I know of constitutionally is the 25th Amendment and that has nothing to do with what is going on currently. The truth of the matter is a sitting president can not be indicted. Period. And if you haven't figured that out shame on you. The only means for removal is impeachment.

That sham of an article from CNN did not specify that nor did the spokesperson from Mueller's counsel in his statement. It is as if the Constitution isn't relevant. Instead it is the standing of the DOJ. No it is the Constitution Article 2.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
You can't even get that right!

There are at least two provisions in the Constitution. Or as you write TWO!!!!!!!!!! Did you not read the Constitution?
In addition to impeachment, there is also the 25th amendment, section 4.

Vesper, I'll add you to the list of people who were ignorant of the fact that the ways in which to remove a sitting president have been widely reported, and discussed ad infinitum on this forum, for months, basically since Trump took office.

This is how many Trump supporters get their reputation for being ignorant, ill-informed, and easily led around by right wing media. Guiliani repeats something that is common knowledge, and you're taking it hook line and sinker that this is news. Then you **** up your facts in public, to boot.

Try harder.
Click to expand...

The 25th isn’t a likely scenario... has it ever been tried? Not to my recollection.

So, there really is just one vehicle, and Rudy just made sure everyone knew about it... and with that, Democrats just learned their car had no engine.

Ouch!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom