In 1973 the Decision was Made Regarding Indicting A Sitting President

[candycorn]

Nobody is trying to unelect Trump. That will be up to congress when they impeach him.

First your "blue wave" has to retake the House (never happen) and then get 67 Senators' votes to convict....MAGA.

We'll see

Tactically, I’m not sure you want Trump removed from office. The 2nd half of an administration is historically a dead period. Congress and POTUS is running for re-election so there is even less going on legislatively. Better to have a wounded Trump than Pence IMHO.

 

[HenryBHough]

Should The Democrat Party coup attempt succeed they needs must understand that it will mean any candidate they propose in any future presidential election, his/her/its family, friends and especially their pets will be fair game from the moment their name is first mooted. That they will be hounded without mercy and charged with countless heinous crimes.

Welcome to the new American politics.

 

[BULLDOG]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

So you're supporting the constitution, a document which was written by "old, dead white men."? Are we in Bizarro World or something?

Granted the case of Gravel vs. United States
ruled that “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime”, where is the "crime" concerning President Donald Trump? It's already been proven that there was absolutely no "collusion" during the election. Even so, when did "collusion" become a crime?

You people have nothing.

When was that proven? That silly House investigation didn't prove anything.

Nor has Mueller's "investigation." Where is the proof that Trump somehow "colluded" with Russia in order to "steal" the election?

Where is the proof that the Russians had anything to do with Trump winning?

I'll bet you used to run your parents nuts by repeatedly yelling "ARE WE THERE YET----ARE WE THERE YET?" from the back seat. Mueller's investigation will be over when he says it is over, and we will all be able to read his report at that time. Calm down.

 

[JGalt]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

So you're supporting the constitution, a document which was written by "old, dead white men."? Are we in Bizarro World or something?

Granted the case of Gravel vs. United States
ruled that “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime”, where is the "crime" concerning President Donald Trump? It's already been proven that there was absolutely no "collusion" during the election. Even so, when did "collusion" become a crime?

You people have nothing.

When was that proven? That silly House investigation didn't prove anything.

Nor has Mueller's "investigation." Where is the proof that Trump somehow "colluded" with Russia in order to "steal" the election?

Where is the proof that the Russians had anything to do with Trump winning?

I'll bet you used to run your parents nuts by repeatedly yelling "ARE WE THERE YET----ARE WE THERE YET?" from the back seat. Mueller's investigation will be over when he says it is over, and we will all be able to read his report at that time. Calm down.

I hate to be the one who pisses in your momma's cornbread, but you're going to be sorely disappointed when Mueller finally closes his investigation.

Even blind old Stevie Wonder can see this coming.

 

[jon_berzerk]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

So you're supporting the constitution, a document which was written by "old, dead white men."? Are we in Bizarro World or something?

Granted the case of Gravel vs. United States
ruled that “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime”, where is the "crime" concerning President Donald Trump? It's already been proven that there was absolutely no "collusion" during the election. Even so, when did "collusion" become a crime?

You people have nothing.

You people have nothing


except stale air between their ears

 

[BULLDOG]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

Read all the menorandums and full contexts.

A single (and obviously buased and parisan) prosecutor does not have the authority to 'Un-elect' a sitting President.

Furthermore, according to the DOJ memoranduns, a sitting President can not be indicted because the demands of abswering accusations and judicially defend his case would put undue pressure on the Chief Executive Officer / President whose job and all his focus and effort must be on the service to and defense of this country.

What the Democrats have been and are doing are undermining the Preident and his ability to carry out his elected duties based ontheir own hatred and prejudices, not on any piece of evidence that exists, not based on any evidence of any crime committed warranting an investigation at all.

As I have repeatedly said for a long while, what we are witnessing now is the largest, collaborated internal coup / act of treason / threat to this nation's democracy in our nation's history...all because a power-hungry, bitter minority - proven enemies of the state within - refuses to accept the outcome of the legal democratic 2016 election!

Nobody is trying to unelect Trump. That will be up to congress when they impeach him.

Impeach him for what?

Perhaps nothing at all. Mueller's report will make all that clear. The anticipation is delicious, isn't it?

 

[Zander]

Democrats that are hoping Mueller somehow "gets Trump" are waiting for Godot.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nobody is trying to unelect Trump. That will be up to congress when they impeach him.

First your "blue wave" has to retake the House (never happen) and then get 67 Senators' votes to convict....MAGA.

We'll see

Tactically, I’m not sure you want Trump removed from office. The 2nd half of an administration is historically a dead period. Congress and POTUS is running for re-election so there is even less going on legislatively. Better to have a wounded Trump than Pence IMHO.

Trump doesn't behave as any other president. Who knows what damage he might do. Pence will be just as wounded as trump if there is an impeachment, and we won't have to worry about him pushing the button because he didn't like a tweet.

 

[BULLDOG]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

So you're supporting the constitution, a document which was written by "old, dead white men."? Are we in Bizarro World or something?

Granted the case of Gravel vs. United States
ruled that “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime”, where is the "crime" concerning President Donald Trump? It's already been proven that there was absolutely no "collusion" during the election. Even so, when did "collusion" become a crime?

You people have nothing.

When was that proven? That silly House investigation didn't prove anything.

Nor has Mueller's "investigation." Where is the proof that Trump somehow "colluded" with Russia in order to "steal" the election?

Where is the proof that the Russians had anything to do with Trump winning?

I'll bet you used to run your parents nuts by repeatedly yelling "ARE WE THERE YET----ARE WE THERE YET?" from the back seat. Mueller's investigation will be over when he says it is over, and we will all be able to read his report at that time. Calm down.

I hate to be the one who pisses in your momma's cornbread, but you're going to be sorely disappointed when Mueller finally closes his investigation.

Even blind old Stevie Wonder can see this coming.

You could be right. I doubt it though.

 

[JGalt]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

Read all the menorandums and full contexts.

A single (and obviously buased and parisan) prosecutor does not have the authority to 'Un-elect' a sitting President.

Furthermore, according to the DOJ memoranduns, a sitting President can not be indicted because the demands of abswering accusations and judicially defend his case would put undue pressure on the Chief Executive Officer / President whose job and all his focus and effort must be on the service to and defense of this country.

What the Democrats have been and are doing are undermining the Preident and his ability to carry out his elected duties based ontheir own hatred and prejudices, not on any piece of evidence that exists, not based on any evidence of any crime committed warranting an investigation at all.

As I have repeatedly said for a long while, what we are witnessing now is the largest, collaborated internal coup / act of treason / threat to this nation's democracy in our nation's history...all because a power-hungry, bitter minority - proven enemies of the state within - refuses to accept the outcome of the legal democratic 2016 election!

Nobody is trying to unelect Trump. That will be up to congress when they impeach him.

Impeach him for what?

Perhaps nothing at all. Mueller's report will make all that clear. The anticipation is delicious, isn't it?

Impeach him for "nothing at all"? Seriously, you leftists have taken off your masks and are showing the world just what petite despots your people really are.

Have you never heard of the "presumption of innocence" or the "rule of law"? Obviously there was no "collusion" which was the original intent of the investigation. So now what? You're hoping for some trumped up charges totally unrelated to anything, in order to unseat a standing President? Perhaps a perjury trap because one or two words didn't match a previous deposition?

You have just shown the world how truly desperate you people really are.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The OP wants to argue a president is above the law.

Not here not ever. He's a paid employee and that's all.

 

[BULLDOG]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

Read all the menorandums and full contexts.

A single (and obviously buased and parisan) prosecutor does not have the authority to 'Un-elect' a sitting President.

Furthermore, according to the DOJ memoranduns, a sitting President can not be indicted because the demands of abswering accusations and judicially defend his case would put undue pressure on the Chief Executive Officer / President whose job and all his focus and effort must be on the service to and defense of this country.

What the Democrats have been and are doing are undermining the Preident and his ability to carry out his elected duties based ontheir own hatred and prejudices, not on any piece of evidence that exists, not based on any evidence of any crime committed warranting an investigation at all.

As I have repeatedly said for a long while, what we are witnessing now is the largest, collaborated internal coup / act of treason / threat to this nation's democracy in our nation's history...all because a power-hungry, bitter minority - proven enemies of the state within - refuses to accept the outcome of the legal democratic 2016 election!

Nobody is trying to unelect Trump. That will be up to congress when they impeach him.

Impeach him for what?

Perhaps nothing at all. Mueller's report will make all that clear. The anticipation is delicious, isn't it?

Impeach him for "nothing at all"? Seriously, you leftists have taken off your masks and are showing the world just what petite despots your people really are.

Have you never heard of the "presumption of innocence" or the "rule of law"? Obviously there was no "collusion" which was the original intent of the investigation. So now what? You're hoping for some trumped up charges totally unrelated to anything, in order to unseat a standing President? Perhaps a perjury trap because one or two words didn't match a previous deposition?

You have just shown the world how truly desperate you people really are.

What did Bill's blowjob have to do with Whitewater? It's amazing how investigations tend to uncover lots of stuff.

 

[JGalt]

Read all the menorandums and full contexts.

A single (and obviously buased and parisan) prosecutor does not have the authority to 'Un-elect' a sitting President.

Furthermore, according to the DOJ memoranduns, a sitting President can not be indicted because the demands of abswering accusations and judicially defend his case would put undue pressure on the Chief Executive Officer / President whose job and all his focus and effort must be on the service to and defense of this country.

What the Democrats have been and are doing are undermining the Preident and his ability to carry out his elected duties based ontheir own hatred and prejudices, not on any piece of evidence that exists, not based on any evidence of any crime committed warranting an investigation at all.

As I have repeatedly said for a long while, what we are witnessing now is the largest, collaborated internal coup / act of treason / threat to this nation's democracy in our nation's history...all because a power-hungry, bitter minority - proven enemies of the state within - refuses to accept the outcome of the legal democratic 2016 election!

Nobody is trying to unelect Trump. That will be up to congress when they impeach him.

Impeach him for what?

Perhaps nothing at all. Mueller's report will make all that clear. The anticipation is delicious, isn't it?

Impeach him for "nothing at all"? Seriously, you leftists have taken off your masks and are showing the world just what petite despots your people really are.

Have you never heard of the "presumption of innocence" or the "rule of law"? Obviously there was no "collusion" which was the original intent of the investigation. So now what? You're hoping for some trumped up charges totally unrelated to anything, in order to unseat a standing President? Perhaps a perjury trap because one or two words didn't match a previous deposition?

You have just shown the world how truly desperate you people really are.

What did Bill's blowjob have to do with Whitewater? It's amazing how investigations tend to uncover lots of stuff.

If you're hoping to uncover the amount of dirt that was brought to light against Clinton, you're barking up the wrong tree. Bill Clinton was a real POS.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nobody is trying to unelect Trump. That will be up to congress when they impeach him.

Impeach him for what?

Perhaps nothing at all. Mueller's report will make all that clear. The anticipation is delicious, isn't it?

Impeach him for "nothing at all"? Seriously, you leftists have taken off your masks and are showing the world just what petite despots your people really are.

Have you never heard of the "presumption of innocence" or the "rule of law"? Obviously there was no "collusion" which was the original intent of the investigation. So now what? You're hoping for some trumped up charges totally unrelated to anything, in order to unseat a standing President? Perhaps a perjury trap because one or two words didn't match a previous deposition?

You have just shown the world how truly desperate you people really are.

What did Bill's blowjob have to do with Whitewater? It's amazing how investigations tend to uncover lots of stuff.

If you're hoping to uncover the amount of dirt that was brought to light against Clinton, you're barking up the wrong tree. Bill Clinton was a real POS.

Yet you couldn't LOCK HIM UP!!! I wonder why.

 

[nat4900]

It's already been proven that there was absolutely no "collusion" during the election. Even so, when did "collusion" become a crime?[/QUOTE]

When did a nitwit like came up with THAT "conclusion"???

(Oooops, sorry, my nad....I forgot that Sean Hannity told you....)

 

[nat4900]

Nor has Mueller's "investigation." Where is the proof that Trump somehow "colluded" with Russia in order to "steal" the election?

Where is the proof that the Russians had anything to do with Trump winning?

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."

 

[nat4900]

Tactically, I’m not sure you want Trump removed from office. The 2nd half of an administration is historically a dead period. Congress and POTUS is running for re-election so there is even less going on legislatively. Better to have a wounded Trump than Pence IMHO.

Precisely!!!!............The democrats' chances of re-gaining the House is mostly "owed" to having the orange buffoon around, wounded, bleeding, and lying his fat ass off.

 

[nat4900]

Obviously there was no "collusion" which was the original intent of the investigation.

LOL (Obviously????..............Really???)

 

[easyt65]

Yes, that was that one person's opinion. Unfortunately for you and for Trump, that guy's opinion is not binding on anyone.

Ot is DOJ Policy, established / confirmed under the Clinton Adminostration, and if you had read any of the memorandums it researched the history behind it and the association to / withthe Constitution you would be much less ignorant.

 

[easyt65]

From the cited article......

Charles Pinckney, a signer of the Constitution, said, “No privilege of this kind [given to Congress] was intended for your Executive” because “no subject had been more abused than privilege.” Gravel v. United States (1973) said, “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime.”

So you're supporting the constitution, a document which was written by "old, dead white men."? Are we in Bizarro World or something?

Granted the case of Gravel vs. United States
ruled that “executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime”, where is the "crime" concerning President Donald Trump? It's already been proven that there was absolutely no "collusion" during the election. Even so, when did "collusion" become a crime?

You people have nothing.

When was that proven? That silly House investigation didn't prove anything.

I guess the IG report finding riminal conduct within the FBI, abuse of the FISA courts, and recommending McCabe for indictment and prosecution was 'nothing' either, huh, genius?!