Oh, I forgot to give you a key highlight from the Mueller testimony before Congress.
Rep. Ken Buck, a Republican, asked: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”
Mueller answered, “Yes.”
1). Mueller said a lot of things, some that contradicted his report that were pointed out in his final hearing that he used the same excuses over and over to ignore it, if he even remembered it.
2). After he's left office? After? What he did before he even took office was so bad, that they have to wait until 2024 possibly to get him? It's not like he's gone underground. One day I'll be a star.
1). He didn't contradict anything in his report at the testimony. Unless you can expressly identify it, I'm calling you out.
2). You might want to read the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 1973 memo titled "Amenability of the President, Vice President, and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office" or the 2000 memo titled "“A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution”. But since I already know you won't look it up, I'll conveniently post a few quotes from the 2000 memo below for you to ignore.
"In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive
branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and
to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution."
"In 1973, this Department concluded that a grand jury should not be permitted to indict a sitting President even if all subsequent proceedings were postponed
until after the President left office."
"[W]e believe the better view is the one advanced by the Department in 1973: a sitting President is immune from indictment as well as from further criminal process."
"In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded tat the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.
Last edited by SpokenTruth - on 12 September 2019
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel"