The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Osborne Russell
    Senior Member
    • Mar 2006
    • 27128

    #76
    Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

    Originally posted by mdh
    Two recent DoJ memorandums stating the President can’t be indicted. The Constitution allows for removal from office by impeachment and conviction. No unelected bureaucrat has the power to remove a duly elected President.
    The Constitution provides for impeachment, so what? Indictment ≠ impeachment. Are you saying that since the President can be impeached, he can't be prosecuted? He can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, but he doesn't have to stop at stop signs? Is that the miracle of impeachability, that it makes you immune to the rest of the law?
    Do not speak of "our institutions" unless you make them yours by acting on their behalf.

    Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny (2017)​

    Comment

    • skuthorp
      Senior Member
      • Jan 2002
      • 73594

      #77
      Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

      Originally posted by mdh
      Two recent DoJ memorandums stating the President can’t be indicted. The Constitution allows for removal from office by impeachment and conviction. No unelected bureaucrat has the power to remove a duly elected President.
      Those Divine Right Imperial Powers again……….. dang it…...

      Comment

      • Keith Wilson
        Trying to be reasonable
        • Oct 1999
        • 64114

        #78
        Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

        There's a clear Constitutional procedure for removing a president from office, and with the current Congress, Mr. Trump probably could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and not be impeached. After the elections, things might be different. But criminal indictments, whether federal or state courts, are another matter entirely, and here we're in uncharted waters. Your claim that Trump is above the law except by a 2/3 vote of the Senate is dubious at best.

        A thought experiment: say that Mr. Mueller's team finds clear evidence of a crime committed by the president; let's say some financial felony for which there are very clear records. The Republicans in the House won't impeach - or they do, but there aren't enough votes in the Senate to remove him. Can he be prosecuted? What about in state court, if these are crimes under, say, New York law? As I said, we're in unknown territory; that's the trouble with electing somebody as shady as Mr. Trump.
        Last edited by Keith Wilson; 05-16-2018, 03:58 PM.
        "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
        for nature cannot be fooled."

        Richard Feynman

        Comment

        • AlanMc
          Senior Member
          • Jul 2017
          • 7635

          #79
          Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

          my simple understanding of this is that even if he murdered someone on live tv, you would have to first impeach him, then remove from office, and THEN you could have a criminal prosecution. so in a way, yeah, the pres is above the law to an extent.

          Comment

          • Keith Wilson
            Trying to be reasonable
            • Oct 1999
            • 64114

            #80
            Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

            I don't think that's ever been established. It has some interesting implications. Since every president eventually leaves office one way or another, the prospect of criminal prosecution only at the end of his term might inspire some strange behavior - trying to pardon himself, for example, or even something seriously anti-democratic to stay in office.
            Last edited by Keith Wilson; 05-16-2018, 04:09 PM.
            "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
            for nature cannot be fooled."

            Richard Feynman

            Comment

            • Tom Montgomery
              Lurking since 1997
              • Sep 1999
              • 35611

              #81
              Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

              What if, after he was elected POTUS, compelling evidence emerged that he had shot and killed someone in the middle of 5th Avenue prior to being elected POTUS?

              Do you think the POTUS could be indicted and prosecuted for murder?
              "They have a lot of stupid people that vote in their primaries. They really do. I'm not really supposed to say that but it's an obvious fact. But when stupid people vote, you know who they nominate? Other stupid people." -- James Carville on the plethora of low-quality GQP candidates in the mid-term election.

              Comment

              • Tom Montgomery
                Lurking since 1997
                • Sep 1999
                • 35611

                #82
                Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

                Originally posted by AlanMc
                my simple understanding of this is that even if he murdered someone on live tv, you would have to first impeach him, then remove from office, and THEN you could have a criminal prosecution. so in a way, yeah, the pres is above the law to an extent.
                I think your understanding is wrong.
                "They have a lot of stupid people that vote in their primaries. They really do. I'm not really supposed to say that but it's an obvious fact. But when stupid people vote, you know who they nominate? Other stupid people." -- James Carville on the plethora of low-quality GQP candidates in the mid-term election.

                Comment

                • John of Phoenix
                  Senior Member
                  • Jun 2001
                  • 31214

                  #83
                  Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

                  Here's an interesting thought. Skip impeachment. reds are spineless anyway.

                  Just have a dozen or so criminal charges waiting in the wings for Jan 21, 2021. Some federal, some state. Enjoy retirement donnie.

                  Comment

                  • skuthorp
                    Senior Member
                    • Jan 2002
                    • 73594

                    #84
                    Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

                    I understand Giuliani is scheduled to appear on Fox to call for the ending of the investigation.
                    I think a few recent developments may nobble that idea.

                    Comment

                    • Tom Montgomery
                      Lurking since 1997
                      • Sep 1999
                      • 35611

                      #85
                      Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

                      The notion that any man is above the law is frankly unAmerican.
                      "They have a lot of stupid people that vote in their primaries. They really do. I'm not really supposed to say that but it's an obvious fact. But when stupid people vote, you know who they nominate? Other stupid people." -- James Carville on the plethora of low-quality GQP candidates in the mid-term election.

                      Comment

                      • John of Phoenix
                        Senior Member
                        • Jun 2001
                        • 31214

                        #86
                        Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

                        rudy is always a little behind the curve on getting his alt-facts straight. reds think it's adorable.

                        Comment

                        • Boater14
                          Banned
                          • Sep 2011
                          • 2896

                          #87
                          Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

                          What role does the Supreme Court play in impeachment? No one is above the president? I think the sacred document references WE THE PEOPLE. lots more in that document beyond the right of 18 year olds to buy guns you know.

                          Comment

                          • Keith Wilson
                            Trying to be reasonable
                            • Oct 1999
                            • 64114

                            #88
                            Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

                            The idea that a president is effectively above the law; that if there is evidence of crimes it requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate to remove him from office before he can be tried seem like very, very bad idea. And I would say that no matter who was in office.
                            "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
                            for nature cannot be fooled."

                            Richard Feynman

                            Comment

                            • SKIP KILPATRICK
                              Senior Member
                              • Jan 2013
                              • 13573

                              #89
                              Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

                              Let me just remind you gentlemen and ladies!


                              No Collusion! No Collusion!
                              Skip

                              ---This post is delivered with righteous passion and with a solemn southern directness --
                              ...........fighting against the deliberate polarization of politics...

                              Comment

                              • AlanMc
                                Senior Member
                                • Jul 2017
                                • 7635

                                #90
                                Re: The 2017-present Special Counsel investigation

                                Originally posted by Keith Wilson
                                The idea that a president is effectively above the law; that if there is evidence of crimes it requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate to remove him from office before he can be tried seem like very, very bad idea. And I would say that no matter who was in office.

                                you can't have the president tied up in court all the time. if he's done something serious, he'll get impeached. then he'll get his day in court. how many americans did obama murder in his drone strikes? when is his trial date again?

                                Comment

                                Working...