• 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

OscarLevant said:
Well, it's debatable at the very minimum. The argument's for and against are all over the internet. Pick your argument. I favor the ones that says there is obstruction.
Click to expand...

Oh...sure...there's lots of spin, speculation, innuendo and "unnamed sources". And all of that means there's nothing.
 
upsideguy said:
Did Trump do something wrong? You seem to be awfully concerned about an indictment. I thought this was suppose to be a big nutin'burger. If you believed that, there would no concern about indictments....

As a pointed out earlier, whether or not Trump can or even needs to be indicted is moot. If members of the Trump campaign did conspire with the Russians OR are found to have been involved in other crimes, they can and will be indicted, even if their name is Trump, Jr or Jared. The President can be impeached.

The issue of whether the Donald can be indicted as a sitting president is moot and therefore that is a nutin'burger.
Click to expand...

The topic of the thread is the possibility of President Trump getting indicted.
 
JANFU said:
Nope. Could also be named as an unindicted co conspirator. Same way Nixon was.
Click to expand...

That isn't an indictment, but keep lowering the bar.
 
Blumenthal: Rudy Giuliani's wrong, Trump can be indicted

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/richard-blumenthal-trump-indictment/

Blumenthal told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that if the President were to be indicted, it could go to the United States Supreme Court.
"It's an issue that has never been resolved, and that way there is a Department of Justice opinion to the contrary," Blumenthal said. "I happen to think that he could be indicted even if the trial is postponed. "
"The President is not above the law, and an indictment -- if that's the course that Robert Mueller chooses to go -- I believe would be upheld by the courts," Blumenthal said on CNN's "The Situation Room."
 
RAMOSS said:
Mueller can't, but it is the Justice Departments opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted... by anybody. If NYS went and did that, it would probably would have to go to the Supreme Court for clarification. He would not be able to be tried while he was in office.
Click to expand...

I hope not...thats pretty heavy baggage to lug into the midterms.:lol:
 
Cardinal said:
If his family committed crimes then they committed crimes. I'm not aware of any law that says that family members are immune from prosecution.

They're people, not royalty.



Uh huh, okay. I'll make a note of that.
Click to expand...
And I will make note of your axiom as well...I wish repubs could be as vindictive, and underhanded as libs.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Mycroft said:
"if"

Give me facts. "Is" he indicted? No. "Can" he be indicted? No. "Will" he be indicted? No.

Save your "if" for your dreams.
Click to expand...

I think Mueller is just following the money. Funny how it all seems to lead back to Trump and Putin.
 
First, I read that such a guarantee was not given Rudy.
Second, Rudy thinks that a pledge not to indict a sitting president is actually good news? It's like a teen coming home to parents and saying, "good news Mom, Cheryl didn't give me VD!"
 
Moot said:
I think Mueller is just following the money. Funny how it all seems to lead back to Trump and Putin.
Click to expand...
That's what happens when you have a conclusion and taylor an investigation to produce only that which fits the predetermined conclusion. Its garbage

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
American said:
Show me the obstruction!
Click to expand...

Well, for starters....first, Trump fired Comey, then he tried to persuade Sessions from recusing himself, then he threatened to fire Mueller twice, he dictated a misleading statement about his son's meeting with a Russian lawyer and he has tried to undermine the justice department at every turn...and now his own lawyers are worried he might perjure himself if he's interviewed by Mueller.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3696d48854c4
 
j-mac said:
That's what happens when you have a conclusion and taylor an investigation to produce only that which fits the predetermined conclusion. Its garbage

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think following the money is standard procedure in most investigations.
 
Moot said:
I think Mueller is just following the money. Funny how it all seems to lead back to Trump and Putin.
Click to expand...

More "if". More dreams.

Okay. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
post said:
zimmer said:
The thread is about indictment.

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

You’re playing little games... just as the media has with its followers. Jacking ‘me up, and jerking them and their emotions around.

Fact is, there is only one way to get rid of the living, breathing 45th President of the United States of America.

Impeachment.
Click to expand...

The thread is about gullible Trump fans falling for the Peanuts comic strip character, Lucy, moving the ball just as the kicker is about to kick it, resulting in a back injury for the kicker!

https://twitter.com/dcpoll/status/996915683979034629
TrumpRudyLucyFootball.jpg
Click to expand...

football-2.jpg


Why is this an ongoing discussion? Giuliani claims Sekulow told him he was told by James Quarles that.... REALLY? Such BS from one discredited has been quoting another is enough to trigger hundreds of posts, here? How? Why?

You are served THIS, as soup, in a restaurant. Waiter, this is too watered down! Send it back!
Fenton said:
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.
.....
:lamo Aww that's tough luck.
Click to expand...


https://twitter.com/costareports/status/996891214019530755
Robert Costa
@costareports
Follow Follow @costareports
More
When Post asked Giuliani for name of SC person who gave verbal assurance of no charge, he replied,
“I’ll check with Jay and let you know tomorrow. Jay got a call and they said we acknowledge that we are bound by Justice Department policy.”

4:12 PM - 16 May 2018
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/HallieJackson/status/997144790692126721
Hallie Jackson
@HallieJackson

More Hallie Jackson Retweeted Hallie Jackson
Giuliani also explains that when they asked Mueller about indictment Q, "He wanted to think about it. And about a day or two later, Jim Quarles called Jay Sekulow back.”
Giuliani says Quarles - a member of special counsel's team - said "they were bound" by DOJ policy.Hallie Jackson added,
Hallie Jackson

@HallieJackson
NEW: Rudy Giuliani tells me that, after days of no response, the special counsel has recently responded to some of their questions re: a potential POTUS interview.
"They’re engaging us on several points where we could reach an agreement.”…
9:00 AM - 17 May 2018
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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...

It's so cute that you believe things Guilani says.
 
JasperL said:
Plenty of people brought this to light before the election, and it was reported on in the media. Unfortunately for Hillary, what the media spent most of their time doing was mentioning Trump's 900 scandals for a day or so, and moving on, and they spent over a year focusing on her EMAILS!!!!
Click to expand...

Have the stuff they have now came out after the election.
 
JasperL said:
Some were, others weren't outside the U.S. And "paper teeth" is funny and delusional if you believe it... :roll:

Besides, the point was if Mueller is indicting people it's not a purely counter-intelligence operation, obviously, because the indictments are criminal.
Click to expand...

The 13 I believe he was referring to were the Russians, since his link said 19 people
 
Mach said:
So you can't refute that it's obviously a criminal investigation. So why are you trying to throw up smoke and failing miserably at it? Lack of ethics?

There are actually 22 people indicted, so 9 in addition to the Russians, one of which has already been convicted, 4 others have plead guilty. And it's not over. And the document itself for Mueller's SC investigation declares it to be a criminal investigation. So you have nothing to offer in refutation of that, but felt it was important to point out that 13 of the 22 people indicted in an investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. election are in fact, Russian. Wow.

I know better than to expect more from you. You could change though, it's never too late.
Click to expand...

Don't act so high and mighty. First of all YOU said 13. I didn't pick the number. So, why did you pick that number? IT was just a coincidence that 13 people were Russian citizens and outside US jurisdiction?

Which is the reason for the paper teeth comment. Sorry you couldn't comprehend that.

And I wasn't trying to refute anything. I know it's a criminal investigation. I haven't said otherwise.
 
Mycroft said:
More "if". More dreams.

Okay. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Click to expand...



Guilliani is the gift that keeps on giving for the left.

In his recent interview with FoxNews he practically admitted that Trump was colluding with the Russians when he said that there was nothing wrong with the Russians trying to help Trump win and then tried to water down what collusion really meant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-again/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eabe00eb5b05




Trump Jr. confessing that he colluded with the Russians must give you nightmares...


"...In his testimony to Congress, Trump Jr. confirmed that he was talking about the opposition research when he said “I love it.” ....

This is key because Trump Jr. wasn't completely clear about what he was talking about in the email. It suggests that he was eager to have the meeting specifically because of the opposition research that was supposedly being supplied by official sources in the Russian government...."​


He also confessed that his father tried to obstruct the investigation...


"...Trump Jr. said he didn't know about his father's direct involvement and actively discouraged it, but he said he thinks Trump may have influenced the messaging about the meeting through then-White House communications aide Hope Hicks..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-meeting-transcripts/?utm_term=.3e2c70e9a51c​
 
Moot said:
I don't think they would. After all, the president is not above the law.





And he is "supporting and defending" the constitution....more than Trump is.
Click to expand...

Neither is Mueller and he's legally obligated to follow DOJ guidelines. The court won't side with Mueller "just this once", nor will it go along with suspending the guide line after-the-fact.

Rosenstein isn't supporting and defending The Constitution if he's allowing unconstitutional actions to take place and move forward.
 
Moot said:
Guilliani is the gift that keeps on giving for the left.

In his recent interview with FoxNews he practically admitted that Trump was colluding with the Russians when he said that there was nothing wrong with the Russians trying to help Trump win and then tried to water down what collusion really meant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-again/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eabe00eb5b05




Trump Jr. confessing that he colluded with the Russians must give you nightmares...


"...In his testimony to Congress, Trump Jr. confirmed that he was talking about the opposition research when he said “I love it.” ....

This is key because Trump Jr. wasn't completely clear about what he was talking about in the email. It suggests that he was eager to have the meeting specifically because of the opposition research that was supposedly being supplied by official sources in the Russian government...."​


He also confessed that his father tried to obstruct the investigation...


"...Trump Jr. said he didn't know about his father's direct involvement and actively discouraged it, but he said he thinks Trump may have influenced the messaging about the meeting through then-White House communications aide Hope Hicks..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-meeting-transcripts/?utm_term=.3e2c70e9a51c​
Click to expand...

yawn...

Still going on with the spin, speculation, innuendo and "unnamed sources".

Dismissed.
 
haymarket said:
I loved how the three FOX idiots listened when the Judge shot down the whole idea of NOT being able to indict Trump and sat on their thumbs and simply ignored it failing to learn anything.
Click to expand...

it's what they do best
 
vesper said:
You want to put it to the test? Fine. All the way to the Supreme Court and the final vote to turn down such a thing will be Gorsuch a Constitutionalist Trump's first choice to the Supreme Court and in a couple of months if rumors are true he is going to pick another to replace Kennedy.

As far as the rest of your comments about Trump's mental health etc. my friend while you look to his character flaws some over a decade old others see someone who is keeping his promises that he made on the campaign trail. Let's be honest. What Trump and his administration have accomplished in a little over a year has pretty much wiped out the last 8 years of Obama. And isn't that what you all are really angry about?
Click to expand...

Wiped out Obama? Oh that’s funny. How’s the Obamacare repeal and replacement going? Obamacare is STILL law. LOL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mycroft said:
yawn...

Still going on with the spin, speculation, innuendo and "unnamed sources".

Dismissed.
Click to expand...

Are you even half the patriot these three are? Granted, it is low bar!

Giuliani, May, 2018:
https://nypost.com/2018/05/17/giuli...russia-helping-campaign-find-dirt-on-clinton/

..“When I ran against them [Democrats] they were looking for dirt on me every day. That’s what you do, maybe you shouldn’t, but you do. Nothing illegal about that,” Giuliani told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on Wednesday evening. “Even if it comes from a Russian, a German, an American, doesn’t matter.”...
...“They never used it, is the main thing,” he said on “The Ingraham Angle.” “They rejected it. If there was collusion with the Russians they would have used it.”..
Click to expand...

Don, Jr., unsworn Senate Q & A transcript:

https://nypost.com/2018/05/17/giuli...russia-helping-campaign-find-dirt-on-clinton/
....“To the extent that they had information concerning the fitness, character, or qualifications of any presidential candidate, I believed that I should at least hear them out,” he told the senators during his September 2017 appearance, according to documents released by the panel on Wednesday.
Click to expand...

A demagouge hotelier imitating the POTUS-elect imitating a used car salesman.:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pre...protections-exchange-giving/story?id=55241910
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7217d0d4029b
January 15, 2017
...Trump said his plan for replacing most aspects of Obama’s health-care law is all but finished. Although he was coy about its details — “lower numbers, much lower deductibles”..
...“It’s not going to be their plan,” he said of people covered under the current law. “It’ll be another plan. But they’ll be beautifully covered. I don’t want single-payer. What I do want is to be able to take care of people,” he said Saturday....
Click to expand...
[h=1]President Trump offers Kim Jong Un 'protections' in exchange for giving up nukes[/h]
  • By JORDYN PHELPS


May 17, 2018,

....“Now that model would take place if we don't make a deal, most likely,” he said, again referring to the Libya model. “But if we make a deal, I think Kim Jong Un is going to be very, very happy. I really believe he's going to very happy.”...
Click to expand...
 
Moot said:
I don't think they would. After all, the president is not above the law.





And he is "supporting and defending" the constitution....more than Trump is.
Click to expand...

It is a question of jurisdiction, not of the sitting president being above the law. The appropriate court is the Senate, that is where jurisdiction falls for a sitting president.

There is question of civil actions against a sitting president, as well. Do not be surprised if the courts rule that any civil actions against Trump must be delayed until he is out of office. There is precedence, research Andrew Johnson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom