Constitutional Atty, Mark Levin: Legal Precedent Is On Trump's Side

#3
#3
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#7
#7
lawgator1 said:
Emperor Lawgator1
Click to expand...



antarctic.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#10
#10
evillawyer said:
If Mark Levin said it, case closed. No reason to consult any actual constitutional law scholars for their opinion.
Click to expand...

I concur. Can't wait to see the scholarly reach for another angle to dispute these simple facts:

“This is not me speaking; this is the Department of Justice speaking, and the position of the Justice Department has not been repealed and has not been amended” since October 16, 2000, Levin said. “Grand juries and prosecutors cannot supplant Congress.”

The only way to remove a president established by the Constitution and by DOJ interpretation of the Constitution is for Congress to trigger the impeachment process.

“He cannot be indicted as a sitting president. Period.”

“Focus. You’re making this too complicated. The Constitution is on the side of the president. The Department of Justice’s own position, which you can read for yourselves, is on the side of the president of the United States. Historical precedent is on the side of the president of the United States. Legal precedent is on the side of the president of the United States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#12
#12
Vol0725 said:
I concur. Can't wait to see the scholarly reach for another angle to dispute these simple facts:

“This is not me speaking; this is the Department of Justice speaking, and the position of the Justice Department has not been repealed and has not been amended” since October 16, 2000, Levin said. “Grand juries and prosecutors cannot supplant Congress.”

The only way to remove a president established by the Constitution and by DOJ interpretation of the Constitution is for Congress to trigger the impeachment process.

“He cannot be indicted as a sitting president. Period.”

“Focus. You’re making this too complicated. The Constitution is on the side of the president. The Department of Justice’s own position, which you can read for yourselves, is on the side of the president of the United States. Historical precedent is on the side of the president of the United States. Legal precedent is on the side of the president of the United States.
Click to expand...

Honest question, how is it that the opinion of the justice department determines legal precedent? That can't be right. Is the quote leaving out some information?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
Vol0725 said:
I concur. Can't wait to see the scholarly reach for another angle to dispute these simple facts:

“This is not me speaking; this is the Department of Justice speaking, and the position of the Justice Department has not been repealed and has not been amended” since October 16, 2000, Levin said. “Grand juries and prosecutors cannot supplant Congress.”

The only way to remove a president established by the Constitution and by DOJ interpretation of the Constitution is for Congress to trigger the impeachment process.

“He cannot be indicted as a sitting president. Period.”

“Focus. You’re making this too complicated. The Constitution is on the side of the president. The Department of Justice’s own position, which you can read for yourselves, is on the side of the president of the United States. Historical precedent is on the side of the president of the United States. Legal precedent is on the side of the president of the United States.
Click to expand...

A DOJ opinion letter has zero bearing on the constitutional question of whether a sitting president can be indicted. Zero, zilch, nada. Why? To quote Marbury v. Madison "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is."

Just do a google search for "can the president be indicted." Lots of scholars out there who are a wee bit more steeped in Constitutional Law than a hack like Levin say the president can be indicted.
 
#15
#15
n_huffhines said:
Honest question, how is it that the opinion of the justice department determines legal precedent? That can't be right. Is the quote leaving out some information?
Click to expand...

You're right. It doesn't. The DOJ is part of the executive branch and it was decided in Marbury v. Madison that it's the judicial branch that gets to say what the law is.
 
#16
#16
evillawyer said:
You're right. It doesn't. The DOJ is part of the executive branch and it was decided in Marbury v. Madison that it's the judicial branch that gets to say what the law is.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is one of policy v. law. There is standing policy within the Department of Justice that prohibits indicting a President in office. However, from a legal perspective, the last time this was visited (Kenneth Starr) the opinion he had Ronald Rotunda author concluded that a President in office can, indeed, be indicted. Rotunda died recently, but revisited this subject in an editorial last year. His conclusion: Trump can be indicted, just not by Mueller due to DOJ policy.

Mueller is a tight laced, by the numbers guy. It seems unlikely he would indict Trump, particularly given the political repercussions that would ensue.

However, I think his eventual report would outline how Trump has violated xyz laws, and thereby put that hot potato in Rosenstein's lap. Rosenstein would then, presumably, provide that report to Congress. And then... All hell breaks loose.

Can the President Be Indicted? A Long-Hidden Legal Memo Says Yes - The New York Times

The president can be indicted — just not by Mueller - The Washington Post
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
OuterBanksVol said:
I think the issue is one of policy v. law. There is standing policy within the Department of Justice that prohibits indicting a President in office. However, from a legal perspective, the last time this was visited (Kenneth Starr) the opinion he had Ronald Rotunda author concluded that a President in office can, indeed, be indicted. Rotunda died recently, but revisited this subject in an editorial last year. His conclusion: Trump can be indicted, just not by Mueller due to DOJ policy.

Mueller is a tight laced, by the numbers guy. It seems unlikely he would indict Trump, particularly given the political repercussions that would ensue.

However, I think his eventual report would outline how Trump has violated xyz laws, and thereby put that hot potato in Rosenstein's lap. Rosenstein would then, presumably, provide that report to Congress. And then... All hell breaks loose.

Can the President Be Indicted? A Long-Hidden Legal Memo Says Yes - The New York Times

The president can be indicted — just not by Mueller - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

The problem is there is nothing there. They have found zero. The entire purpose of the witch hunt is to drive down his approval number like in Nixon’s case. They drove it down into the 20s. The problem they have here is everyone knows the investigation is more corrupt than who they are investigating. Trumps approval rating is rising. And it will keep rising as his policies are working. I hope the keep this up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#19
#19
Jxn Vol said:
The problem is there is nothing there. They have found zero. The entire purpose of the witch hunt is to drive down his approval number like in Nixon’s case. They drove it down into the 20s. The problem they have here is everyone knows the investigation is more corrupt than who they are investigating. Trumps approval rating is rising. And it will keep rising as his policies are working. I hope the keep this up.
Click to expand...

I see. So... Rosenstein's in on this coup, too? What's his motive?
 
#22
#22
OuterBanksVol said:
I see. So... Rosenstein's in on this coup, too? What's his motive?
Click to expand...

Not sure I can take an educated guess on his angle to stay in power.

Is it me, or does Rosenstein seem like a schnide defensive lil' popus ass? Kinda like he's the smartest guy in the room per se.
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
Is this the same Mark Levin that blamed the Ebola crisis on Obama, claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood had infected our government, that Obamacare would bring death panels to the elderly and sick children, that was a devout "Never Trumper" until he wasn't, and who was caught in a 'pay for play' scam with his radio show? Anyone placing any credibility with this loon speaks volumes on those doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top