HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bernardo de La Paz » Journal
Page: 1

Bernardo de La Paz

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Jul 16, 2004, 11:36 PM
Number of posts: 33,898

About Me

Canadian who lived for many years in Northern California and left a bit of my heart there.

Journal Archives

Re (breaking it down for you) "I can't legally indict the sitter. You have every right to impeach"


His statement:

Paraphrase: "I can't legally indict the sitter."

under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.


Thus he says he can't legally indict "while he is in office" (the sitter). Hint, hint, get him out of office (de-elect/impeach-convict).

Paraphrase: "You have every right to impeach"

the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing.


There is one such process, the only process that fits that bill and that would be impeachment. Notice that Mueller very carefully says (again) "sitting" and "formally" together.

So, that is how he says "You have every right to impeach."

Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Wed May 29, 2019, 02:03 PM (2 replies)

I quoted them above. But here's another quote from his statement today for you to read

Referring to the DoJ's official determination (this DoJ under this AG (and previous AG)):

So that was justice department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office’s -- that is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general. As required by department regulations. [...]


... because, as Mueller explicitly says earlier in his statement, innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

Then he explicitly says he makes his own decisions.

Now I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.


His study of the law and regulations make him feel he is bound. He spends lots of time in his statement saying 'I am bound by this and I am bound by that'. The only way to read that is 'Do your job! I've gone as far as I possibly can!'

Now, you can disagree with him on his reading of law and regulation and you can disagree with him on his conclusions about what to do about them, but you can't say he doesn't operate with integrity.

There has been discussion about an appearance before congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before congress.


He explicitly is not going to get into allegations that a defendant has no defense in court against. Not while testifying, not while at a podium.

He is not going to talk about the pee tape. Sorry.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.


This could not be clearer! Congress, especially the House, get access to that work product! Do what you are doing now, arguing in court to get access.

Couple this with his mention of the unindicted co-conspirator sitting ( "sitting president" ) in the Office.

Triple this with his part about "the constitution requires [requires][REQUIRES] a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing." That process is impeachment. Mueller says it is required when it is credible to formally accuse "wrong doing".

Mueller chooses his words carefully.

So beyond what I have said here today, and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the justice department or congress. [...]


Sorry, but I trust Mueller's reading of the law and appropriateness (his shorthand for what he feels he is obligated to do/say/not-do/not-say.

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interference in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you.


"ATTENTION OF EVERY AMERICAN"

That means:

Wake up!

Don't fall asleep!

It's not over! My bit is over but it is not over!

Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Wed May 29, 2019, 01:49 PM (1 replies)

Ask not "who'd you like to have a beer with". Ask "who'd you like to provide daycare for a day".nt

Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Sat May 18, 2019, 06:51 AM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1