So according to Sensenbrenner, it's a "miscarriage of justice" to even investigate a sitting POTUS?

[ehrnst]

Last edited Wed Jul 24, 2019, 12:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Lemme get this straight:

Barr set it up so that Mueller had two options: either exonerate or indict. Nothing else...

But at the same time was also told he could not indict a sitting POTUS. Mueller took a third route - exonerate POTUS on the charge of Collusion that lacked sufficient evidence, and "make no conclusions" about charges that had evidence to support them, but make it clear that there was "no exoneration" for those charges.

This displeased the GOP, obviously. Barr had rigged the investigation to return only exoneration, and Mueller got around it.

Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) tried to use this bizarre Kafkaesque finger puzzle that Mueller escaped to accuse Muller of being deliberately inconsistent - if he could reach a legal conclusion on Collusion (exoneration), then he MUST have been able to reach one on Obstruction.... and the only choice that Mueller had in conclusion was "exoneration."

Sensenbrenner then goes on to posit that continuing this investigation of POTUS was a "miscarriage of justice," because if he continued KNOWING that he was not going to be able to indict, then it's become a "witch hunt," defined as an investigation you know from the start doesn't have a basis for indictment. - pretzel logic that basically claims it's "legally unethical" to even investigate a sitting POTUS...

Wait for it...

Making a sitting POTUS above the reach of the law.

Of course Mueller explained that the DOJ memo that states the POTUS cannot be indicted of a crime doesn't mean that POTUS can't be guilty of a crime.

[SWBTATTReg]

1. These people obviously forgot all about Richard Nixon etc. nt

[Cosmocat]

16. Most of them forgot about THEMSELVES

and what they did or said as sitting congressmen or republican lunatics while Bill Clinton was POTUS.

[Iliyah]

2. And yet the Republicans went totally

overboard in President Clinton's investigations?

No one is above the law.

[Cosmocat]

17. This is the most exasperating part of this - the PUBLIC

in the entirety of the republican party and conservative media propoganda machine during 90s they spent Bill Clintons entire presidency investigating the ever loving shit out of him, and screaming about how the POTUS is not above the law.

Today they are saying this kind of crazy ass shit ...

Fine, they are partisan lunatics.

But, that the PUBLIC AT LARGE puts up with it is beyond any belief.

All the "both sides are the same bullshit," etc.

If this country was not at DEFCON 1 stupid, every elected republican would be ousted.

But ...

[Tanuki]

3. What if Epstein's vault contains smoking gun evidence of Trump

sexually assaulting underage girls? Will they still sing the same tune about not indicting a sitting president? I wish someone would ask them.

[Iliyah]

4. Yes.

GOPers would make the minors (at the time) the bad ones.

[ehrnst]

13. Or say it's all been faked... (nt)

[ehrnst]

12. The only scenario is that such evidence convinces Pence that DT's unfit, & Pence invokes the 25th.

Then only if the majority of cabinet heads agree, then they remove him.

Then he can be indicted.

Trumps base will say it's fake. They will never, NEVER support his removal under any circumstances, and will never vote for anyone that agrees that he needs to be removed.

[NewJeffCT]

5. wait - Sensenbrenner was in Congress in the 90s

when Republicans investigated Socks the fucking Cat.

He has 0 standing to criticize any investigation into Trump

[ehrnst]

14. But the DOJ head then didn't hold to the idea that you can't indict a sitting POTUS.

That's his whole argument - that because the GOP AG says that sitting POTUS can't be indicted, then any investigation will not lead to any criminal indictment, and therefore puts the POTUS above the law.

Barr's public opinions on that the last few years is the very reason Trump appointed him. Barr has the ability to prevent him from being indicted while in office.

[NewJeffCT]

19. I think Reno

had affirmed the Nixon DOJ ruling that a sitting president can't be indicted.

[ehrnst]

20. Here's what I found:

According to Ken Starr:

The message emanating from the new regulations, issued by then–Attorney General Janet Reno, was this: Special counsel, do your job, and then inform the attorney general—in confidence—of the reasons underlying your decisions to prosecute and your determinations not to seek a prosecution (“declinations”).

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/ken-starr-muellers-report-shouldnt-go-congress/585577/

[NewJeffCT]

21. Starr was a special prosecutor

and operated under different rules than Mueller.

[Cosmocat]

18. RIGHT?

but, here we are ...

JHC.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Yeah, well, that was Jim Senselessbrainer.

He might not be the stupidest member of Congress - that's probably Gohmert - but he's in the top ten.

[ehrnst]

7. Good lord - Jim Jordan and Gohmert were also total drama queens.

I saw Mueller visibly sigh and fight not to roll his eyes when Jordan started auditioning for a community theatre production of Inherit the Wind...

[librechik]

8. Just a minute. This only counts if the president is Republican. They have different rationales for

Democrats. When it's a Dem, no one is above the law. When it's a Repub, no criminal charges can count.

[Kid Berwyn]

9. By, Milhous! I think she's got it!

Only GOP pretzeldents are above the law.

Of course, it’s always open season on Democratic presidents.

[librechik]

10. sadly

and infuriatingly true.

[ehrnst]

11. Well, yeah. DUH. ( I picture Jim Jordan rolling his eyes while saying this).

[UTUSN]

15. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex.

Just an aside: His family fortune came from his family's invention of Kotex, so he's called Tex, and he *HATES* being called Tex.

Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex. Tex.