If Trump can't be "indicted," does THAT mean he is innocent?

[FA_Q2]

The question posed by the thread's title seems to be Giuliani's main "defense" of Trump.....

The first question as to whether a sitting president can or cannot be indicted is one that, eventually, the SCOTUS must resolve....

But much more important, is a sitting president cannot be indicted, all that means is that he or she is ABOVE the law....and not that he or she is innocent.

There is absolutely no doubt that a sitting President can be indicted.

Article 1, Section 3 paragraph 7 of the U.S. Constitution states:

"Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

However Mueller cannot indict the President under current DOJ rules. Since the current rules disallow a Presidential indictment, the President could fire Mueller for violating those rules.

If that happened, the indictment would still stand. So effectively Mueller would be out of a job, but the President would be indicted.

You are clearly not reading the passage that you posted:

Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

This statement says the exact opposite of what you claim - once convicted the president is removed from office. What this passage is covering is that Congress is not the judicial branch. They cannot, for instance, sentence Trump to jail time for a crime that they convict him of in office. Instead, they impeach him and on conviction they are removed from office and subject to all of the standard procedures that the Judicial Branch would normally go through to convict them again in a legal setting.

I believe this passage serves 2 primary purposes; to ensure that congress does not try and act like a court and actually sentence people and to remove any idea that an impeachment would remove the ability to convict in a court under double jeopardy.

 

[nat4900]

You seem to think an indictment means one is automatically guilty, which it doesn’t. Indicted folks are acquitted all the time.

THAT is a "conclusion" that you pulled out of your behind.....and also that your reading comprehension sucks......lol

 

[easyt65]

or there is no evidence to indict.

What you keep forgetting (and must be reminded to morons like you) is that you know NOTHING and to make the declaration that there "is NO evidence" confirms that you're a moron.....LOL

ZERO EVIDENCE:

There was never a CRIME to be investigated.
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a specific CRIME that warranted an investigation
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a CRIME perpetrated by the President regarding Russians

The Democrats' 1st ACCUSATION was one of 'COLLUSION'.
-- 'Collusion' is NOT a CRIME, and there has been NO EVIDENCE of collusion...on Trump's part.

Mueller continues to ILLEGALLY non-comply with a Congressional subpoena demanding he hand over / show evidence of such a crime. He has / is breaking the law himself just to prevent from Showing that HE HAS NOTING... If he did he would not be breaking the law right now.

--- Funny how Mueller is in the middle of committing Obstruction through illegal non-compliance of a Congressional subpoena while attempting to find / manufacture evidence against Trump for Obstruction...

 

[nat4900]

There has been NO EVIDENCE of a CRIME perpetrated by the President regarding Russians

LOL

Trump told Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak of his decision to fire Comey.

"I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job ……I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

So, moron, Trump is then "innocent".????.......LOL

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY......GOT PROOF?

So YES...Innocent.

"LOL"

 

[Frankeneinstein]

What you keep forgetting (and must be reminded to morons like you) is that you know NOTHING and to make the declaration that there "is NO evidence" confirms that you're a moron.....LOL

how does one forget nothing? all you've reminded us of is how upset you tend to get when trump beats you...and what's with the bold underlined type? what is that "extra confirmed" or something?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

"I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job ……I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

If that was confirmed it would be underscored

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The question posed by the thread's title seems to be Giuliani's main "defense" of Trump.....

The first question as to whether a sitting president can or cannot be indicted is one that, eventually, the SCOTUS must resolve....

But much more important, is a sitting president cannot be indicted, all that means is that he or she is ABOVE the law....and not that he or she is innocent.

Jake, we know for a fact that Trump conspired to collude to obstruct Hillary from taking her rightful place in the Oval Office.

We got him this time!! Part 756,734

 

[easyt65]

Trump told Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak of his decision to fire Comey.

"I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job ……I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

SO?

Please cite the exact criminal code the President violated when he did so....or stfu.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The question posed by the thread's title seems to be Giuliani's main "defense" of Trump.....

The first question as to whether a sitting president can or cannot be indicted is one that, eventually, the SCOTUS must resolve....

But much more important, is a sitting president cannot be indicted, all that means is that he or she is ABOVE the law....and not that he or she is innocent.

Indicted for WHAT?

Schlonging Hillary

 

[FA_Q2]

How stupid are you? Do you even have clue what a grand jury does???


They don't convict any one, they just recommend ..

Where the fuck did I bring up GRAND JURY and CONVICTION???

Find someone that can read and comprehend and ask for immediate help.......LOL

Wow.

Considering that YOU brought up indictment which requires a grand jury, YOU brought up grand juries. Further, you also made the connection right in the title of your own thread that indictment and innocence are somehow related. They are not.

I can only surmise that you are utterly ignorant of what an indictment is and what place it serves in the legal system. I have to wonder why you even started this thread.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty... and yes, I'm sorry to break it to you, even Donald Trump.

Moron.......an indictment does NOT mean that someone has been proven guilty......An indictment simply means that there WILL BE a trial where innocence or guilt is proven.

Why is Trump exempt of the same procedure that everyone else must face?.

Because the constitution sets out a very specific procedure for the president because of the position that he holds. That is what impeachment is for.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I have to wonder why you even started this thread.

Since the 2016 election it has become a form of therapy for the queens minions

 

[Richard-H]

I believe that this is all moot...yet interesting argument.

I seriously doubt that Trump is stupid enough to have done anything that would get him indicted or impeached. That's what he has his legions of sycophants for.

Guys like him don't get their hands dirty. They have their sycophants to throw under the bus.

That's what they get for being sycophants!

 

[WEATHER53]

No it means that you are relegated to this endless, useless dog and pony show witch hunt

 

[Richard-H]

or there is no evidence to indict.

What you keep forgetting (and must be reminded to morons like you) is that you know NOTHING and to make the declaration that there "is NO evidence" confirms that you're a moron.....LOL

ZERO EVIDENCE:

There was never a CRIME to be investigated.
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a specific CRIME that warranted an investigation
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a CRIME perpetrated by the President regarding Russians

The Democrats' 1st ACCUSATION was one of 'COLLUSION'.
-- 'Collusion' is NOT a CRIME, and there has been NO EVIDENCE of collusion...on Trump's part.

Mueller continues to ILLEGALLY non-comply with a Congressional subpoena demanding he hand over / show evidence of such a crime. He has / is breaking the law himself just to prevent from Showing that HE HAS NOTING... If he did he would not be breaking the law right now.

--- Funny how Mueller is in the middle of committing Obstruction through illegal non-compliance of a Congressional subpoena while attempting to find / manufacture evidence against Trump for Obstruction...

This investigation has never been directed at Trump. It's an investigation into Russia's meddling into our elections.

There have been some 20 people indicted by Mueller. So there's plenty on evidence of collusion.

It seems that everyone - both conservatives and liberals - are certain that Trump is guilty. Which is why everyone is only talking about the investigation as though it is directed at Trump. It's not.

As I said earlier, I doubt thatTrump is stupid enough to have done enything that would get him impeached or indicted. He has his legions of sycophants to do hs dirty work for him.

All that Trump need to do is to honestly answer Mueller's questions, but that would mean throwing his sycophants under the bus. I doubt he'll hesitate.

The worst thing he could do is lie to Mueller.

 

[WEATHER53]

or there is no evidence to indict.

What you keep forgetting (and must be reminded to morons like you) is that you know NOTHING and to make the declaration that there "is NO evidence" confirms that you're a moron.....LOL

ZERO EVIDENCE:

There was never a CRIME to be investigated.
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a specific CRIME that warranted an investigation
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a CRIME perpetrated by the President regarding Russians

The Democrats' 1st ACCUSATION was one of 'COLLUSION'.
-- 'Collusion' is NOT a CRIME, and there has been NO EVIDENCE of collusion...on Trump's part.

Mueller continues to ILLEGALLY non-comply with a Congressional subpoena demanding he hand over / show evidence of such a crime. He has / is breaking the law himself just to prevent from Showing that HE HAS NOTING... If he did he would not be breaking the law right now.

--- Funny how Mueller is in the middle of committing Obstruction through illegal non-compliance of a Congressional subpoena while attempting to find / manufacture evidence against Trump for Obstruction...

This investigation has never been directed at Trump. It's an investigation into Russia's meddling into our elections.

There have been some 20 people indicted by Mueller. So there's plenty on evidence of collusion.

It seems that everyone - both conservatives and liberals - are certain that Trump is guilty. Which is why everyone is only talking about the investigation as though it is directed at Trump. It's not.

As I said earlier, I doubt thatTrump is stupid enough to have done enything that would get him impeached or indicted. He has his legions of sycophants to do hs dirty work for him.

All that Trump need to do is to honestly answer Mueller's questions, but that would mean throwing his sycophants under the bus. I doubt he'll hesitate.

The worst thing he could do is lie to Mueller.

Incredible presumptions and none of it in evidence after a years worth of thrashing about

 

[easyt65]

or there is no evidence to indict.

What you keep forgetting (and must be reminded to morons like you) is that you know NOTHING and to make the declaration that there "is NO evidence" confirms that you're a moron.....LOL

ZERO EVIDENCE:

There was never a CRIME to be investigated.
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a specific CRIME that warranted an investigation
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a CRIME perpetrated by the President regarding Russians

The Democrats' 1st ACCUSATION was one of 'COLLUSION'.
-- 'Collusion' is NOT a CRIME, and there has been NO EVIDENCE of collusion...on Trump's part.

Mueller continues to ILLEGALLY non-comply with a Congressional subpoena demanding he hand over / show evidence of such a crime. He has / is breaking the law himself just to prevent from Showing that HE HAS NOTING... If he did he would not be breaking the law right now.

--- Funny how Mueller is in the middle of committing Obstruction through illegal non-compliance of a Congressional subpoena while attempting to find / manufacture evidence against Trump for Obstruction...

This investigation has never been directed at Trump. It's an investigation into Russia's meddling into our elections.

There have been some 20 people indicted by Mueller. So there's plenty on evidence of collusion.

It seems that everyone - both conservatives and liberals - are certain that Trump is guilty. Which is why everyone is only talking about the investigation as though it is directed at Trump. It's not.

As I said earlier, I doubt thatTrump is stupid enough to have done enything that would get him impeached or indicted. He has his legions of sycophants to do hs dirty work for him.

All that Trump need to do is to honestly answer Mueller's questions, but that would mean throwing his sycophants under the bus. I doubt he'll hesitate.

The worst thing he could do is lie to Mueller.

The judge who just recently ripped Mueller a new one, telling him the only reason he went after Manafort was to get Trump - which is true, doesn't agree with you.

If Mueller was 'just following the evidence' he would have walked away with the indictment of Manafort AND JOHN / TONY PODESTA, who ran the 2nd group doing exactly what Manafort's team was doing. By picking and choosing what criminals he decides to go after Mueller demonstrated he has a specific target....which is exactly what the Judge told Mueller.

'You're, not fooling anyone, son...'

 

[Richard-H]

or there is no evidence to indict.

What you keep forgetting (and must be reminded to morons like you) is that you know NOTHING and to make the declaration that there "is NO evidence" confirms that you're a moron.....LOL

ZERO EVIDENCE:

There was never a CRIME to be investigated.
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a specific CRIME that warranted an investigation
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a CRIME perpetrated by the President regarding Russians

The Democrats' 1st ACCUSATION was one of 'COLLUSION'.
-- 'Collusion' is NOT a CRIME, and there has been NO EVIDENCE of collusion...on Trump's part.

Mueller continues to ILLEGALLY non-comply with a Congressional subpoena demanding he hand over / show evidence of such a crime. He has / is breaking the law himself just to prevent from Showing that HE HAS NOTING... If he did he would not be breaking the law right now.

--- Funny how Mueller is in the middle of committing Obstruction through illegal non-compliance of a Congressional subpoena while attempting to find / manufacture evidence against Trump for Obstruction...

This investigation has never been directed at Trump. It's an investigation into Russia's meddling into our elections.

There have been some 20 people indicted by Mueller. So there's plenty on evidence of collusion.

It seems that everyone - both conservatives and liberals - are certain that Trump is guilty. Which is why everyone is only talking about the investigation as though it is directed at Trump. It's not.

As I said earlier, I doubt thatTrump is stupid enough to have done enything that would get him impeached or indicted. He has his legions of sycophants to do hs dirty work for him.

All that Trump need to do is to honestly answer Mueller's questions, but that would mean throwing his sycophants under the bus. I doubt he'll hesitate.

The worst thing he could do is lie to Mueller.

Incredible presumptions and none of it in evidence after a years worth of thrashing about

There's apparently lot's of evidence showing collusion by Trump's sycophants. Just not any (that we know of) showing that Trump himself is guilty of collusion.

 

[Richard-H]

or there is no evidence to indict.

What you keep forgetting (and must be reminded to morons like you) is that you know NOTHING and to make the declaration that there "is NO evidence" confirms that you're a moron.....LOL

ZERO EVIDENCE:

There was never a CRIME to be investigated.
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a specific CRIME that warranted an investigation
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a CRIME perpetrated by the President regarding Russians

The Democrats' 1st ACCUSATION was one of 'COLLUSION'.
-- 'Collusion' is NOT a CRIME, and there has been NO EVIDENCE of collusion...on Trump's part.

Mueller continues to ILLEGALLY non-comply with a Congressional subpoena demanding he hand over / show evidence of such a crime. He has / is breaking the law himself just to prevent from Showing that HE HAS NOTING... If he did he would not be breaking the law right now.

--- Funny how Mueller is in the middle of committing Obstruction through illegal non-compliance of a Congressional subpoena while attempting to find / manufacture evidence against Trump for Obstruction...

This investigation has never been directed at Trump. It's an investigation into Russia's meddling into our elections.

There have been some 20 people indicted by Mueller. So there's plenty on evidence of collusion.

It seems that everyone - both conservatives and liberals - are certain that Trump is guilty. Which is why everyone is only talking about the investigation as though it is directed at Trump. It's not.

As I said earlier, I doubt thatTrump is stupid enough to have done enything that would get him impeached or indicted. He has his legions of sycophants to do hs dirty work for him.

All that Trump need to do is to honestly answer Mueller's questions, but that would mean throwing his sycophants under the bus. I doubt he'll hesitate.

The worst thing he could do is lie to Mueller.

The judge who just recently ripped Mueller a new one, telling him the only reason he went after Manafort was to get Trump - which is true, doesn't agree with you.

If Mueller was 'just following the evidence' he would have walked away with the indictment of Manafort AND JOHN / TONY PODESTA, who ran the 2nd group doing exactly what Manafort's team was doing. By picking and choosing what criminals he decides to go after Mueller demonstrated he has a specific target....which is exactly what the Judge told Mueller.

'You're, not fooling anyone, son...'

So maybe Mueller does have reason to believe that Trump is guilty. But we don't know that for sure - but it's apparent that you believe it.

Either way it's common legal practice to try to force lower level people into cooperating in order to get evidence against the BIG fish.

You wouldn't have been debating this issue over and over again for the past months if you didn't believe that Trump was guilty.

You're apparently a lot more certain of his guilt than I am.

 

[edward37]

or there is no evidence to indict.

What you keep forgetting (and must be reminded to morons like you) is that you know NOTHING and to make the declaration that there "is NO evidence" confirms that you're a moron.....LOL

ZERO EVIDENCE:

There was never a CRIME to be investigated.
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a specific CRIME that warranted an investigation
There has been NO EVIDENCE of a CRIME perpetrated by the President regarding Russians

The Democrats' 1st ACCUSATION was one of 'COLLUSION'.
-- 'Collusion' is NOT a CRIME, and there has been NO EVIDENCE of collusion...on Trump's part.

Mueller continues to ILLEGALLY non-comply with a Congressional subpoena demanding he hand over / show evidence of such a crime. He has / is breaking the law himself just to prevent from Showing that HE HAS NOTING... If he did he would not be breaking the law right now.

--- Funny how Mueller is in the middle of committing Obstruction through illegal non-compliance of a Congressional subpoena while attempting to find / manufacture evidence against Trump for Obstruction...

This investigation has never been directed at Trump. It's an investigation into Russia's meddling into our elections.

There have been some 20 people indicted by Mueller. So there's plenty on evidence of collusion.

It seems that everyone - both conservatives and liberals - are certain that Trump is guilty. Which is why everyone is only talking about the investigation as though it is directed at Trump. It's not.

As I said earlier, I doubt thatTrump is stupid enough to have done enything that would get him impeached or indicted. He has his legions of sycophants to do hs dirty work for him.

All that Trump need to do is to honestly answer Mueller's questions, but that would mean throwing his sycophants under the bus. I doubt he'll hesitate.

The worst thing he could do is lie to Mueller.

The judge who just recently ripped Mueller a new one, telling him the only reason he went after Manafort was to get Trump - which is true, doesn't agree with you.

If Mueller was 'just following the evidence' he would have walked away with the indictment of Manafort AND JOHN / TONY PODESTA, who ran the 2nd group doing exactly what Manafort's team was doing. By picking and choosing what criminals he decides to go after Mueller demonstrated he has a specific target....which is exactly what the Judge told Mueller.

'You're, not fooling anyone, son...'

Manaforts ex son in law is going to rat out your thieves