Dems Want to Ban DOJ Rule About Indicting Sitting Presidents

3

House Democrats are thinking about passing legislation to bar the executive guidance rule that suggests the Justice Department refrain from indicting a sitting president, The Hill reports. They phrase it differently.

It isn’t the DOJ rule that is the problem. It’s the Constitution.

The late Charles Black stated that a sitting president may not be indicted (see pp. 111-112, 136 in Black & Bobbitt, Impeachment: A Handbook). These conclusions are matters of constitutional law, not departmental policy—though they are confirmed in an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion—and they are founded on reasons of original intent, text, structure, prudence, and precedent.

No matter the case, if Mueller had evidence he would have revealed it. That much is obvious.

Overstepping Their Bounds As Usual

People should know what the media won’t tell you. This latest gambit by Democrats is merely propaganda to tout a lie offered up by Robert Mueller in his infamous 9-minute speech condemning the President.

Mueller cited the rule as a reason for not suggesting an indictment of obstruction. He was forced to admit the next day, in a joint statement with the DOJ, that it was not the reason he didn’t recommend an indictment. It is also important to note that nothing would stop Mueller from telling the world of any crimes he might know about it.

The Hill didn’t mention that. Instead, they talked about the President’s comment on the campaign trail two-and-a-half years ago when he said, “I could shoot somebody, and my followers wouldn’t leave me.”

The President was JOKING and they know it. The Hill is willfully lying.

They Also Want to Ensure Democrats Win Elections Ad Infinitum

Along with that bill, Democrats have legislation allegedly to shield elections from foreign influence but in effect, they guarantee the election of Democrats.

The Democrats want to overrule the Executive Branch’s DOJ and their rule by violating the. Constitution and they know they can’t do that. Therefore, this is just more nasty propaganda.

This also sounds like overreach and an attempt to impose on the Executive in violation of the separation of powers.

“It’s definitely on the menu,” said far-left Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. “I’m in favor of expanding enforcement tools and accountability tools, and that’s definitely one of them.”

Far-left Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, is also signaling his support. While he has not been involved in talks about specific proposals, Jeffries said, “It strikes me as a reasonable thing to consider.”

“It’s fair to say that one of the options we should consider is revisiting that Department of Justice rule so you don’t have a rogue and lawless president immunized from criminal prosecution,” he said.

We don’t know where or when it will show up exactly, but it’s good for another talking point.

PowerInbox
  • One thing we learned from the ‘Russia hoax’ is that the left is a de facto criminal enterprise, from top to bottom.

  • Could you imagine the screeching if the chamber of commerce AKA repubs had tried this during the reign of the ocean level lowering King Canute.

  • Mueller tried to make that false claim also, that the DOJ did not allow indictment, trying to imply that he would have indicted Trump if not for a rule he had to follow. It’s more of his deception, the thug has broken rules his entire career. He did not indict because he would have been destroyed in a massive backlash which would have exposed his deeds. He was forced out of business by Barr, I speculate because he was given an ultimatum.