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

[Dschrute3]

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.

Indictments don't determine guilt or innocence. A sitting President can't be indicted, however a sitting President can be impeached and then removed from office and then can be indicted.

Spot On. Thanks.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Ahhhhh, we finally have found a "leaker" within the Mueller team..........LOL

I think you have perfected saying nothing

 

[nat4900]

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.

True......BUT with one important clarification....an "indictment" is simply an ACCUSATION...it does not mean a statement of guilt.......

If the accusation (indictment) is valid and warrants scrutiny, then it is up to the House to impeach...which is an exploration of those levied charges and accusations.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

Because there is no evidence against him

DERP DERP DERPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP ^^^^^

that you or anyone else but Mueller knows about.

What exactly do you think he is guilty of doing?

I've never said I think he's guilty - ever.

See YOUR post, #76, where you said this:

"he gets his in 2020 as soon as he loses the election ."

You obviously think they'll "get" him.. get him for what? You obviously think he is guilty of something, or you wouldn't have said this.

 

[nat4900]

Indictments don't determine guilt or innocence. A sitting President can't be indicted, however a sitting President can be impeached and then removed from office and then can be indicted.

You're correct except for your layman's definition of indictment......I never stated that an indictment determines guilt or innocence......All I stated is that if you Trump ass kissers are AGAINST even the accusation (indictment,) then you are presuming that he is innocent.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

then you are presuming that he is innocent.

or there is no evidence to indict...you keep forgetting that

 

[Norman]

The fact that there is no evidence of him doing anything wrong, means he is innocent.

Oh except he did take the election from your Messiah, but that's what winners do.

 

[Papageorgio]

Indictments don't determine guilt or innocence. A sitting President can't be indicted, however a sitting President can be impeached and then removed from office and then can be indicted.

You're correct except for your layman's definition of indictment......I never stated that an indictment determines guilt or innocence......All I stated is that if you Trump ass kissers are AGAINST even the accusation (indictment,) then you are presuming that he is innocent.

Nut job, show me where I have claimed Trump to be innocent? A person is innocent until proven guilty so I go by the courts not partisan BS like yourself.

So, as I have stated before numerous times before and where you are too ignorant to comprehend simple English, I will state again, if there is evidence of any crime, then let the chips fall where they may. Russia cannot and should never be trusted. I hope a partisan asshole such as yourself can understand that however I doubt you are that intelligent.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Indictments don't determine guilt or innocence. A sitting President can't be indicted, however a sitting President can be impeached and then removed from office and then can be indicted.

Spot On. Thanks.

Apparently not as spot on for an ignorant ass like Nat, he is full of partisan hate.

 

[Papageorgio]

then you are presuming that he is innocent.

or there is no evidence to indict...you keep forgetting that

We don't know that for sure, all we get is what the leaks tell us and what the press is trying to spoon feed to the public, until the investigation is over we have nothing. That is what makes hate mongers such as Nat tick, they need the negativity to survive.

 

[Dschrute3]

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.

Indictments don't determine guilt or innocence. A sitting President can't be indicted, however a sitting President can be impeached and then removed from office and then can be indicted.

Spot On. Thanks.

Apparently not as spot on for an ignorant ass like Nat, he is full of partisan hate.

Well, most Democrats have become radicalized lunatics. Way too much Democrat Fake News. They don't even realize that 'Collusion' isn't a crime. If it were, Hitlery and Obama would have to be arrested immediately. Because there's no question they colluded with foreign entities to influence our Election. This whole thing is a Coup-attempt Witch Hunt. Time to end it.

 

[easyt65]

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

Sorry, the DOJ under Clinton, with counseling from the USSC, made the policy decision not to allow a sitting President to be indicted.

The DOJ stated that doing so would be the equivalence of 1 single prosecutor assuming the responsibilities and powers - specifically / especially powers of Impeachment - bestowed upon Congress to reverse the decision / choice made by the American people, to -un-do' a democratic election, to 'un-elect a president'.

The USSC argued that it was NEVER their desire nor should it be anyone's desire to allow 1 single person, especially should they be extremely partisan, have the power / authority to 'Impeach' a sitting US President on their own, which they deemed indicting a sitting President would be.

Allowing this to happen would enable / allow to happen exactly what is going on now - a rabidly partisan party / prosecutor to 'Impeach' / 'undo' an election simply because they hate the man / his beliefs / agenda / etc and not for some ACTUAL crime (which Democrats have not proved, after 2 years of investigations and come up with nothing, this President has done - NO CRIME / NO EVIDENCE.)

This DOJ just recently publicly re-affirmed their stance on this.

NOT going to happen, no matter how badly the Democrats / snowflakes want to KEEP ON HELPING THE RUSSIANS divide this nation.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

you really really need to get over your sad obsession of trump. every president that gets in office is always a criminal who never follows the constitution,clinton and bush are mass murderers as obama is but like trump,they wont go to jail because there is one different law for politicians than there is for us.you really need to get over your sad obsession and whining of trump and talk about how the other presidents should be behind bars FIRST before trump is since their imprisonment is far more way more behind.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

We don't know that for sure, all we get is what the leaks tell us and what the press is trying to spoon feed to the public, until the investigation is over we have nothing. That is what makes hate mongers such as Nat tick, they need the negativity to survive.

oh yeah...they are still in pain from the election

 

[Dschrute3]

'Collusion' isn't a crime. When are the dumbed-down Democrat Wingnuts gonna get that? They need to turn the Democrat Fake News off, and get informed.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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

Sorry, the DOJ under Clinton, with counseling from the USSC, made the policy decision not to allow a sitting President to be indicted.

The DOJ stated that doing so would be the equivalence of 1 single prosecutor assuming the responsibilities and powers - specifically / especially powers of Impeachment - bestowed upon Congress to reverse the decision / choice made by the American people, to -un-do' a democratic election, to 'un-elect a president'.

The USSC argued that it was NEVER their desire nor should it be anyone's desire to allow 1 single person, especially should they be extremely partisan, have the power / authority to 'Impeach' a sitting US President on their own, which they deemed indicting a sitting President would be.

Allowing this to happen would enable / allow to happen exactly what is going on now - a rabidly partisan party / prosecutor to 'Impeach' / 'undo' an election simply because they hate the man / his beliefs / agenda / etc and not for some ACTUAL crime (which Democrats have not proved, after 2 years of investigations and come up with nothing, this President has done - NO CRIME / NO EVIDENCE.)

This DOJ just recently publicly re-affirmed their stance on this.

NOT going to happen, no matter how badly the Democrats / snowflakes want to KEEP ON HELPING THE RUSSIANS divide this nation.

Nonsense!

Ken Starr did have the power to indict the President because he was independent of the DOJ. Mueller, theoretically can't indict the President because he's subject to DOJ rules. Those rules can be changed or worked around.

The Constitution does not give an special immunity to the President. It does clearly state that he is not immune from indictment or prosecution.

Try reading the Constitution sometime - there's more to it then the second amendment!

Mueller doesn't have to indict the President anyway. He just has to issue a report of his findings. That report will serve as an indictment (assuming that the President is guilty of something). It would be up to Congress to decide whether or not to impeach - and whether or not to appoint an independent prosecutor.

If Trump is found to be guilty of something by Mueller, this DOJ rule will not be enough to save him from impeachment, indictment or prosecution.

 

[easyt65]

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

Sorry, the DOJ under Clinton, with counseling from the USSC, made the policy decision not to allow a sitting President to be indicted.

The DOJ stated that doing so would be the equivalence of 1 single prosecutor assuming the responsibilities and powers - specifically / especially powers of Impeachment - bestowed upon Congress to reverse the decision / choice made by the American people, to -un-do' a democratic election, to 'un-elect a president'.

The USSC argued that it was NEVER their desire nor should it be anyone's desire to allow 1 single person, especially should they be extremely partisan, have the power / authority to 'Impeach' a sitting US President on their own, which they deemed indicting a sitting President would be.

Allowing this to happen would enable / allow to happen exactly what is going on now - a rabidly partisan party / prosecutor to 'Impeach' / 'undo' an election simply because they hate the man / his beliefs / agenda / etc and not for some ACTUAL crime (which Democrats have not proved, after 2 years of investigations and come up with nothing, this President has done - NO CRIME / NO EVIDENCE.)

This DOJ just recently publicly re-affirmed their stance on this.

NOT going to happen, no matter how badly the Democrats / snowflakes want to KEEP ON HELPING THE RUSSIANS divide this nation.

Nonsense!

Ken Starr did have the power to indict the President because he was independent of the DOJ. Mueller, theoretically can't indict the President because he's subject to DOJ rules. Those rules can be changed or worked around.

The Constitution does not give an special immunity to the President. It does clearly state that he is not immune from indictment or prosecution.

Try reading the Constitution sometime - there's more to it then the second amendment!

Mueller doesn't have to indict the President anyway. He just has to issue a report of his findings. That report will serve as an indictment (assuming that the President is guilty of something). It would be up to Congress to decide whether or not to impeach - and whether or not to appoint an independent prosecutor.

If Trump is found to be guilty of something by Mueller, this DOJ rule will not be enough to save him from impeachment, indictment or prosecution.

I feel your pain...and if you were running the DOJ I would be on your side...but since the DOJ just recently stated that they would not change their policy regarding this issue, I am going to have to side with them.

 

[blastoff]

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.

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

 

[easyt65]

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

Sorry, the DOJ under Clinton, with counseling from the USSC, made the policy decision not to allow a sitting President to be indicted.

The DOJ stated that doing so would be the equivalence of 1 single prosecutor assuming the responsibilities and powers - specifically / especially powers of Impeachment - bestowed upon Congress to reverse the decision / choice made by the American people, to -un-do' a democratic election, to 'un-elect a president'.

The USSC argued that it was NEVER their desire nor should it be anyone's desire to allow 1 single person, especially should they be extremely partisan, have the power / authority to 'Impeach' a sitting US President on their own, which they deemed indicting a sitting President would be.

Allowing this to happen would enable / allow to happen exactly what is going on now - a rabidly partisan party / prosecutor to 'Impeach' / 'undo' an election simply because they hate the man / his beliefs / agenda / etc and not for some ACTUAL crime (which Democrats have not proved, after 2 years of investigations and come up with nothing, this President has done - NO CRIME / NO EVIDENCE.)

This DOJ just recently publicly re-affirmed their stance on this.

NOT going to happen, no matter how badly the Democrats / snowflakes want to KEEP ON HELPING THE RUSSIANS divide this nation.

Nonsense!

Ken Starr did have the power to indict the President because he was independent of the DOJ. Mueller, theoretically can't indict the President because he's subject to DOJ rules. Those rules can be changed or worked around.

The Constitution does not give an special immunity to the President. It does clearly state that he is not immune from indictment or prosecution.

Try reading the Constitution sometime - there's more to it then the second amendment!

Mueller doesn't have to indict the President anyway. He just has to issue a report of his findings. That report will serve as an indictment (assuming that the President is guilty of something). It would be up to Congress to decide whether or not to impeach - and whether or not to appoint an independent prosecutor.

If Trump is found to be guilty of something by Mueller, this DOJ rule will not be enough to save him from impeachment, indictment or prosecution.

I feel your pain...and if you were running the DOJ I would be on your side...but since the DOJ just recently stated that they would not change their policy regarding this issue, I am going to have to side with them.

 

[nat4900]

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