Could There Already Be There An Indictment Under Seal for Trump?

At least you are up to Civics 001. Ruling that a law is unconstitutional is just that. It simple means that law no longer is valid or exists. It doesn't rewrite the law or write a new law to replace it.

Sidebar: I am talking law and constitution here, not necessarily reality. Judges often in essence write law, and once, at least in the case of John Robert's ruling on Obamacare, literally rewrote the law. The fact that he could not legally or constitutionally do that mattered little.

 

20 years from now, leftists will still be saying Trump is going to be arrested "very soon".

 

lol yea 20 years from now we'll keep hearing "Once that Mueller reports finds collusion, Trump's grandkids will be sorry!"

 

You are just playing silly semantic games.

The court ruling a law unconstitutional is the same thing as Congress repealing a law or the Executive branch vetoing it. They are all dealing with the Law of the Land.

 

A judge would quash RodB's arguments if made in court.

In terms of debate slavery, derideo_te owns rodb.

 

Your signature reminds me of the Dean Martin quip, "Show me a man who has no fear and I'll show you a guy that gets beat up a lot."

 

Who are you responding to?

Don't they program alt left bots to at least be able to quote?

 

One either writes or rewrites a law, or one does not write or rewrite a law. If that's a semantic problem for you go take some remedial english.

 

Puerile ad hom VIOLATION of PF Rules duly noted and ignored for derogatory reasons.

 

Maybe so, but what does this have to do with anything in the thread? Courts often make rulings that have no connection with the law and/or are not legal themselves. This thread is about law, policies, procedures, and regulations, not about this or that judge's ruling. A judge ruled Mueller could proceed with the Manafort indictment(s) when it clearly violates the Special Counsel statute. Another judge ruled that Mueller in not a principle officer that requires confirmation by the Senate when he clearly does require (well, at least 98%) confirmation as do every appointed US Attorneys, and Mueller has more independent authority than US Attorneys as stated in the same statute.

 

You are the one that said you have a semantics problem. I pointed out your error. There was nothing ad hom, let alone childish ad hom -- whatever that is -- about it. Go away.

 

Then you have no basis to claim a president can’t be indicted lol

 

Problem is you trust talk radio more than judges lol

 

What are you talking about? Judges never indict anybody and judges never tell a grand jury or a prosecutor who to indict. Trump cannot be indicted because the DOJ says he can't -- loud and clear. Now, Mueller could go for it anyway and get fired by the AG for breaking the Special Counsel law, 28 CFR 600, followed by the AG squashing the indictment while the judge at this stage is just a spectator.

 

No problem. On the whole talk radio is more trustworthy than many judges. At least talk radio is accountable to someone.

 

In no way talk radio is more trustworthy than many judges. That's what you want to or need to believe or have been told to believe. The vast majority of judges do their jobs very as most keep politics out of their rulings/judgements. That's the oath they swore.

 

Rodb's comments about DOJ policy and regulations are wrong.

1. They are not law.

2. They are at the mercy of judges.

3. Talk radio is not more trustworthy than judges.

 

The DOJ doesn’t get to decide that lol
Again, the DOJ are lawyers. Lawyers don’t get to dictate to judges. Why are not understanding this??

 

Yah because when they make up **** and get it wrong, they just claim everyone else got it wrong lol

 

They have to believe it, otherwise they have to admit they just enjoy being lied to because it makes them feel good.

 

Where did I ever say or imply that lawyers ever dictate anything to judges? I have no idea what you are referring to. And what has that anything to do with Mueller getting fired and the AG quashing his errant indictment?

 

It’s doj lawyers who say he can’t be indicted, nobody else

 

Sadly, this makes perfect sense. Thanks.

 

What has this to do with anybody dictating anything to judges? Lawyers are the only group that can ask for indictments. And they either do or they don't, period.... end of story. Judges are never involved except to perfunctorily put their signature on the paper, which they do every time a US Attorney gets an indictment -- it's a rubber stamp, and never do if a US Attorney doesn't get an indictment.

 

So if a lawyer tries to indict trump he would have no problem