Perhaps time to challenge why a POTUS cannot be indicted

[Hutch Starskey]

Who says there is no authority to prosecute a sitting president? You are then suggesting they are above the law then.

It's the same evidence whether congress impeaches on their own or with an indictment.

Let's say congress opted not to remove a president who is accused of criminality.
That president finishes his term and is out if office. He then is charged and convicted of multiple serious felonies.

How then did congress protect the American people from a corrupt president?

They didn't , they failed. They should be impeached.

Since only congress can remove the president, having a sitting president indicted by another authority makes no sense.

It would be maligned for political reasons by hack-twats like you.

Certainly a criminal conviction is sufficient grounds for removal by congress.

A conviction can still happen after impeachment. The indicting agency can send their information to congress.

Anything else is unconstitutional.

Thats assuming there is an impeachment.

That how the system works and was designed.

Has historically worked.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The number of indictments doesn’t mean squat. The evidence would be what matters. There is due process and removing a President without due process is a major mistake.

Well, the charges are made only when the prosecutors have the evidence they need.
So yeah, the evidence of multiple crimes would be huge.
How many of Trump's guys have walked because that wasn't the case?

I'm not suggesting there is no due process.

Ive said multiple times that Congress would be shown the evidence and their process would go from there.

They can do that already without having to indict the President at the State level,

You just want to be able to score political points because "ORANGE MAN BAD"

What a **** you are.

And he is putting under the guise of being fair. Since when is denying someone due process fair?

Where is there no due process, dope?

Your unsubstantiated fears are not above the law, let Congress take care of the Presidency, I am sure if Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be removed from office. Nutter.

You and you political agenda will then be under Pence.

I've never suggested congress shouldn't take care of it , ya lying POS.

 

[Papageorgio]

But they do not have the authority to prosecute a sitting president. Only the House and Indict, and only the Senate can convict.

Who says there is no authority to prosecute a sitting president? You are then suggesting they are above the law then.

It's the same evidence whether congress impeaches on their own or with an indictment.

Let's say congress opted not to remove a president who is accused of criminality.
That president finishes his term and is out if office. He then is charged and convicted of multiple serious felonies.

How then did congress protect the American people from a corrupt president?

They didn't , they failed. They should be impeached.

Since only congress can remove the president, having a sitting president indicted by another authority makes no sense.

It would be maligned for political reasons by hack-twats like you.

Certainly a criminal conviction is sufficient grounds for removal by congress.

A conviction can still happen after impeachment. The indicting agency can send their information to congress.

Anything else is unconstitutional.

Thats assuming there is an impeachment.

You don’t think the agenda driven Democrats led by Pelosi won’t impeach?

 

[Papageorgio]

Well, the charges are made only when the prosecutors have the evidence they need.
So yeah, the evidence of multiple crimes would be huge.
How many of Trump's guys have walked because that wasn't the case?

I'm not suggesting there is no due process.

Ive said multiple times that Congress would be shown the evidence and their process would go from there.

They can do that already without having to indict the President at the State level,

You just want to be able to score political points because "ORANGE MAN BAD"

What a **** you are.

And he is putting under the guise of being fair. Since when is denying someone due process fair?

Where is there no due process, dope?

Your unsubstantiated fears are not above the law, let Congress take care of the Presidency, I am sure if Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be removed from office. Nutter.

You and you political agenda will then be under Pence.

I've never suggested congress shouldn't take care of it , ya lying POS.

I didn’t say you did you liar.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Who says there is no authority to prosecute a sitting president? You are then suggesting they are above the law then.

It's the same evidence whether congress impeaches on their own or with an indictment.

Let's say congress opted not to remove a president who is accused of criminality.
That president finishes his term and is out if office. He then is charged and convicted of multiple serious felonies.

How then did congress protect the American people from a corrupt president?

They didn't , they failed. They should be impeached.

Since only congress can remove the president, having a sitting president indicted by another authority makes no sense.

It would be maligned for political reasons by hack-twats like you.

Certainly a criminal conviction is sufficient grounds for removal by congress.

A conviction can still happen after impeachment. The indicting agency can send their information to congress.

Anything else is unconstitutional.

Thats assuming there is an impeachment.

You don’t think the agenda driven Democrats led by Pelosi won’t impeach?

It's the c*nts in the senate who will give political cover to Trump.

 

[martybegan]

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

Or we just keep the system the same, as per the constitution, where only the House has the right to indict the president, and only the Senate can convict him.

Derp....the constitution says nothing about it, dope.

The Constitution gives only the House the right indict a president for removal, and only the Senate the right to try him and remove him.

based on that the Federal Courts have implied that any indictment of a president has to come from the House, then the Senate removes him, then the locality where the crime was committed can try him.

Nope. The courts have said nothing.

The ban is only a Nixon era policy at DOJ.

Maybe because the courts know better. They would be usurping the legislatures Constitutional role a the sole entity able to remove a sitting president from office.

 

[bendog]

That is the point that sails over this nut jobs head. Some people are hopelessly stuck on stupid.

Great!

Now take it to the next step, dope?

How do they find evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a crime that never happened to present in court?

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

I don't see what's wrong with an indictment being filed. Actually, it might be necessary to file an indictment to stop a statute of limitations running on a crime like .... sexual harassment, which could apply easily to Slick or Trump. But the SC, or any court, could still find a sitting president can't be tried on an indictment.

It's not clear that anyone in the DOJ actually wants a trial for Trump. At least while he's in office. But should the new AG be able to keep us from hearing what Mueller may contend shows collusion between Trump and foreign actors? I don't think so. Whether he ever faces legal consequences for anything he might have done in the campaign is a separate issue imo. Personally, I'm not much interesting is prosecuting political crimes.

If he laundered money or cheated on taxes ... he can be prosecuted on that after he's out of office. But he's the president. He gave up any right to privacy to biz dealings that were not part of a blind trust he had no say in.

I have no interest in seeing a sitting president prosecuted either. Unfortunately in this climate, congress cannot be trusted to act in a non partisan way.

No level of corruption should be tolerated in a president. This president is turning out to be perhaps the most corrupt in history.
If the impeachment process isn't applied or fails to remove this president, then when will it ever work?

Maybe sealed indictments should be made and delivered to congress for them to review and act on and only unsealed if they dont act. The American people have a right to know and a right to know if their congress didn't act.

I thought that the Rehnquist Court's decision to allow Slick to be sued by Paula Jones while he was in office over allegations he did things BEFORE he became potus was one of the worst decisions I can think of. At the time the Court po-poed notions that the case would have political ramifications

We don't want Courts deciding issues of crimes and personal law suits that involve things other than the actual actions a president takes when carrying out his official duties. Anything else should wait until the person is out of office. Doing it any other way just invites people to use courts to score political hit points.

That's all separate from whether a potus can be indicted in criminal (or civil) court on allegations that he's misused the office, or illegally obtained the office. And there are two aspects of that question.

Should the president have the power to keep us from knowing what actions he's allegedly taken that are abuses of official power? The only way to keep an Attny General from deep sixing charges is to file an indictment, because an indictment is a public document that is supposed to be open, although a judge can order stuff blacked out. I think the indictment is necessary to keep any president from evading checks and balances ... because if his party controls congress, there won't be any publicity.

Second is the question of whether courts have any real jurisdiction to try a president for abuse of power, while he's in office, or whether the only way to try him/her on abuses is in congress. I don't trust congress. But people have a remedy even with a corrupt congress. We can vote the bastards out if they don't have the power to hide the shit they're up to, and that goes back to an indictment.

I don't know about sealed indictments. I think people have a right to know about any allegation of misuse of power. Even if it's as lame as Corsi's birther bullshit.

 

[Papageorgio]

That is the point that sails over this nut jobs head. Some people are hopelessly stuck on stupid.

Great!

Now take it to the next step, dope?

How do they find evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a crime that never happened to present in court?

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

I don't see what's wrong with an indictment being filed. Actually, it might be necessary to file an indictment to stop a statute of limitations running on a crime like .... sexual harassment, which could apply easily to Slick or Trump. But the SC, or any court, could still find a sitting president can't be tried on an indictment.

It's not clear that anyone in the DOJ actually wants a trial for Trump. At least while he's in office. But should the new AG be able to keep us from hearing what Mueller may contend shows collusion between Trump and foreign actors? I don't think so. Whether he ever faces legal consequences for anything he might have done in the campaign is a separate issue imo. Personally, I'm not much interesting is prosecuting political crimes.

If he laundered money or cheated on taxes ... he can be prosecuted on that after he's out of office. But he's the president. He gave up any right to privacy to biz dealings that were not part of a blind trust he had no say in.

I have no interest in seeing a sitting president prosecuted either. Unfortunately in this climate, congress cannot be trusted to act in a non partisan way.

No level of corruption should be tolerated in a president. This president is turning out to be perhaps the most corrupt in history.
If the impeachment process isn't applied or fails to remove this president, then when will it ever work?

Maybe sealed indictments should be made and delivered to congress for them to review and act on and only unsealed if they dont act. The American people have a right to know and a right to know if their congress didn't act.

Then tell Mueller to end his investigation give the results and let the House Democrats do what they need to do.

 

[Papageorgio]

Great!

Now take it to the next step, dope?

How do they find evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a crime that never happened to present in court?

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

I don't see what's wrong with an indictment being filed. Actually, it might be necessary to file an indictment to stop a statute of limitations running on a crime like .... sexual harassment, which could apply easily to Slick or Trump. But the SC, or any court, could still find a sitting president can't be tried on an indictment.

It's not clear that anyone in the DOJ actually wants a trial for Trump. At least while he's in office. But should the new AG be able to keep us from hearing what Mueller may contend shows collusion between Trump and foreign actors? I don't think so. Whether he ever faces legal consequences for anything he might have done in the campaign is a separate issue imo. Personally, I'm not much interesting is prosecuting political crimes.

If he laundered money or cheated on taxes ... he can be prosecuted on that after he's out of office. But he's the president. He gave up any right to privacy to biz dealings that were not part of a blind trust he had no say in.

I have no interest in seeing a sitting president prosecuted either. Unfortunately in this climate, congress cannot be trusted to act in a non partisan way.

No level of corruption should be tolerated in a president. This president is turning out to be perhaps the most corrupt in history.
If the impeachment process isn't applied or fails to remove this president, then when will it ever work?

Maybe sealed indictments should be made and delivered to congress for them to review and act on and only unsealed if they dont act. The American people have a right to know and a right to know if their congress didn't act.

I thought that the Rehnquist Court's decision to allow Slick to be sued by Paula Jones while he was in office over allegations he did things BEFORE he became potus was one of the worst decisions I can think of. At the time the Court po-poed notions that the case would have political ramifications

We don't want Courts deciding issues of crimes and personal law suits that involve things other than the actual actions a president takes when carrying out his official duties. Anything else should wait until the person is out of office. Doing it any other way just invites people to use courts to score political hit points.

That's all separate from whether a potus can be indicted in criminal (or civil) court on allegations that he's misused the office, or illegally obtained the office. And there are two aspects of that question.

Should the president have the power to keep us from knowing what actions he's allegedly taken that are abuses of official power? The only way to keep an Attny General from deep sixing charges is to file an indictment, because an indictment is a public document that is supposed to be open, although a judge can order stuff blacked out. I think the indictment is necessary to keep any president from evading checks and balances ... because if his party controls congress, there won't be any publicity.

Second is the question of whether courts have any real jurisdiction to try a president for abuse of power, while he's in office, or whether the only way to try him/her on abuses is in congress. I don't trust congress. But people have a remedy even with a corrupt congress. We can vote the bastards out if they don't have the power to hide the shit they're up to, and that goes back to an indictment.

Under Nixon, what did the AG do? What did the AG do under Clinton? It will be the same with an AG under Trump.

You don’t need an indictment.

You people are insane.

 

[bendog]

Great!

Now take it to the next step, dope?

How do they find evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a crime that never happened to present in court?

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

I don't see what's wrong with an indictment being filed. Actually, it might be necessary to file an indictment to stop a statute of limitations running on a crime like .... sexual harassment, which could apply easily to Slick or Trump. But the SC, or any court, could still find a sitting president can't be tried on an indictment.

It's not clear that anyone in the DOJ actually wants a trial for Trump. At least while he's in office. But should the new AG be able to keep us from hearing what Mueller may contend shows collusion between Trump and foreign actors? I don't think so. Whether he ever faces legal consequences for anything he might have done in the campaign is a separate issue imo. Personally, I'm not much interesting is prosecuting political crimes.

If he laundered money or cheated on taxes ... he can be prosecuted on that after he's out of office. But he's the president. He gave up any right to privacy to biz dealings that were not part of a blind trust he had no say in.

I have no interest in seeing a sitting president prosecuted either. Unfortunately in this climate, congress cannot be trusted to act in a non partisan way.

No level of corruption should be tolerated in a president. This president is turning out to be perhaps the most corrupt in history.
If the impeachment process isn't applied or fails to remove this president, then when will it ever work?

Maybe sealed indictments should be made and delivered to congress for them to review and act on and only unsealed if they dont act. The American people have a right to know and a right to know if their congress didn't act.

Then tell Mueller to end his investigation give the results and let the House Democrats do what they need to do.

Ah the old stop the investigation argument.

 

[bendog]

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

I don't see what's wrong with an indictment being filed. Actually, it might be necessary to file an indictment to stop a statute of limitations running on a crime like .... sexual harassment, which could apply easily to Slick or Trump. But the SC, or any court, could still find a sitting president can't be tried on an indictment.

It's not clear that anyone in the DOJ actually wants a trial for Trump. At least while he's in office. But should the new AG be able to keep us from hearing what Mueller may contend shows collusion between Trump and foreign actors? I don't think so. Whether he ever faces legal consequences for anything he might have done in the campaign is a separate issue imo. Personally, I'm not much interesting is prosecuting political crimes.

If he laundered money or cheated on taxes ... he can be prosecuted on that after he's out of office. But he's the president. He gave up any right to privacy to biz dealings that were not part of a blind trust he had no say in.

I have no interest in seeing a sitting president prosecuted either. Unfortunately in this climate, congress cannot be trusted to act in a non partisan way.

No level of corruption should be tolerated in a president. This president is turning out to be perhaps the most corrupt in history.
If the impeachment process isn't applied or fails to remove this president, then when will it ever work?

Maybe sealed indictments should be made and delivered to congress for them to review and act on and only unsealed if they dont act. The American people have a right to know and a right to know if their congress didn't act.

I thought that the Rehnquist Court's decision to allow Slick to be sued by Paula Jones while he was in office over allegations he did things BEFORE he became potus was one of the worst decisions I can think of. At the time the Court po-poed notions that the case would have political ramifications

We don't want Courts deciding issues of crimes and personal law suits that involve things other than the actual actions a president takes when carrying out his official duties. Anything else should wait until the person is out of office. Doing it any other way just invites people to use courts to score political hit points.

That's all separate from whether a potus can be indicted in criminal (or civil) court on allegations that he's misused the office, or illegally obtained the office. And there are two aspects of that question.

Should the president have the power to keep us from knowing what actions he's allegedly taken that are abuses of official power? The only way to keep an Attny General from deep sixing charges is to file an indictment, because an indictment is a public document that is supposed to be open, although a judge can order stuff blacked out. I think the indictment is necessary to keep any president from evading checks and balances ... because if his party controls congress, there won't be any publicity.

Second is the question of whether courts have any real jurisdiction to try a president for abuse of power, while he's in office, or whether the only way to try him/her on abuses is in congress. I don't trust congress. But people have a remedy even with a corrupt congress. We can vote the bastards out if they don't have the power to hide the shit they're up to, and that goes back to an indictment.

Under Nixon, what did the AG do? What did the AG do under Clinton? It will be the same with an AG under Trump.

You don’t need an indictment.

You people are insane.

Thanks Kreskin, but you don't know shit.

 

[bendog]

Since only congress can remove the president, having a sitting president indicted by another authority makes no sense.

It would be maligned for political reasons by hack-twats like you.

Certainly a criminal conviction is sufficient grounds for removal by congress.

A conviction can still happen after impeachment. The indicting agency can send their information to congress.

Anything else is unconstitutional.

Thats assuming there is an impeachment.

You don’t think the agenda driven Democrats led by Pelosi won’t impeach?

It's the c*nts in the senate who will give political cover to Trump.

Legal cover, sure. But at least the senate would have to let us know what the charges were.

 

[Papageorgio]

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

I don't see what's wrong with an indictment being filed. Actually, it might be necessary to file an indictment to stop a statute of limitations running on a crime like .... sexual harassment, which could apply easily to Slick or Trump. But the SC, or any court, could still find a sitting president can't be tried on an indictment.

It's not clear that anyone in the DOJ actually wants a trial for Trump. At least while he's in office. But should the new AG be able to keep us from hearing what Mueller may contend shows collusion between Trump and foreign actors? I don't think so. Whether he ever faces legal consequences for anything he might have done in the campaign is a separate issue imo. Personally, I'm not much interesting is prosecuting political crimes.

If he laundered money or cheated on taxes ... he can be prosecuted on that after he's out of office. But he's the president. He gave up any right to privacy to biz dealings that were not part of a blind trust he had no say in.

I have no interest in seeing a sitting president prosecuted either. Unfortunately in this climate, congress cannot be trusted to act in a non partisan way.

No level of corruption should be tolerated in a president. This president is turning out to be perhaps the most corrupt in history.
If the impeachment process isn't applied or fails to remove this president, then when will it ever work?

Maybe sealed indictments should be made and delivered to congress for them to review and act on and only unsealed if they dont act. The American people have a right to know and a right to know if their congress didn't act.

Then tell Mueller to end his investigation give the results and let the House Democrats do what they need to do.

Ah the old stop the investigation argument.

No it isn’t, Hutch is pissed because nothing has happened, then if that is the case then Mueller needs to concluded his investigation before we can do anything. That is the only way things would happen now, like he wishes.

I want the investigation to run its course and will wait for justice to met itself out.

If Trump is found guilty of crimes, he needs impeached, I have said that from the beginning. Tell your buddy hutch to be patient.

 

[Papageorgio]

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

I don't see what's wrong with an indictment being filed. Actually, it might be necessary to file an indictment to stop a statute of limitations running on a crime like .... sexual harassment, which could apply easily to Slick or Trump. But the SC, or any court, could still find a sitting president can't be tried on an indictment.

It's not clear that anyone in the DOJ actually wants a trial for Trump. At least while he's in office. But should the new AG be able to keep us from hearing what Mueller may contend shows collusion between Trump and foreign actors? I don't think so. Whether he ever faces legal consequences for anything he might have done in the campaign is a separate issue imo. Personally, I'm not much interesting is prosecuting political crimes.

If he laundered money or cheated on taxes ... he can be prosecuted on that after he's out of office. But he's the president. He gave up any right to privacy to biz dealings that were not part of a blind trust he had no say in.

I have no interest in seeing a sitting president prosecuted either. Unfortunately in this climate, congress cannot be trusted to act in a non partisan way.

No level of corruption should be tolerated in a president. This president is turning out to be perhaps the most corrupt in history.
If the impeachment process isn't applied or fails to remove this president, then when will it ever work?

Maybe sealed indictments should be made and delivered to congress for them to review and act on and only unsealed if they dont act. The American people have a right to know and a right to know if their congress didn't act.

I thought that the Rehnquist Court's decision to allow Slick to be sued by Paula Jones while he was in office over allegations he did things BEFORE he became potus was one of the worst decisions I can think of. At the time the Court po-poed notions that the case would have political ramifications

We don't want Courts deciding issues of crimes and personal law suits that involve things other than the actual actions a president takes when carrying out his official duties. Anything else should wait until the person is out of office. Doing it any other way just invites people to use courts to score political hit points.

That's all separate from whether a potus can be indicted in criminal (or civil) court on allegations that he's misused the office, or illegally obtained the office. And there are two aspects of that question.

Should the president have the power to keep us from knowing what actions he's allegedly taken that are abuses of official power? The only way to keep an Attny General from deep sixing charges is to file an indictment, because an indictment is a public document that is supposed to be open, although a judge can order stuff blacked out. I think the indictment is necessary to keep any president from evading checks and balances ... because if his party controls congress, there won't be any publicity.

Second is the question of whether courts have any real jurisdiction to try a president for abuse of power, while he's in office, or whether the only way to try him/her on abuses is in congress. I don't trust congress. But people have a remedy even with a corrupt congress. We can vote the bastards out if they don't have the power to hide the shit they're up to, and that goes back to an indictment.

Under Nixon, what did the AG do? What did the AG do under Clinton? It will be the same with an AG under Trump.

You don’t need an indictment.

You people are insane.

Thanks Kreskin, but you don't know shit.

And neither do you asshole.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Great!

Now take it to the next step, dope?

How do they find evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a crime that never happened to present in court?

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

I don't see what's wrong with an indictment being filed. Actually, it might be necessary to file an indictment to stop a statute of limitations running on a crime like .... sexual harassment, which could apply easily to Slick or Trump. But the SC, or any court, could still find a sitting president can't be tried on an indictment.

It's not clear that anyone in the DOJ actually wants a trial for Trump. At least while he's in office. But should the new AG be able to keep us from hearing what Mueller may contend shows collusion between Trump and foreign actors? I don't think so. Whether he ever faces legal consequences for anything he might have done in the campaign is a separate issue imo. Personally, I'm not much interesting is prosecuting political crimes.

If he laundered money or cheated on taxes ... he can be prosecuted on that after he's out of office. But he's the president. He gave up any right to privacy to biz dealings that were not part of a blind trust he had no say in.

I have no interest in seeing a sitting president prosecuted either. Unfortunately in this climate, congress cannot be trusted to act in a non partisan way.

No level of corruption should be tolerated in a president. This president is turning out to be perhaps the most corrupt in history.
If the impeachment process isn't applied or fails to remove this president, then when will it ever work?

Maybe sealed indictments should be made and delivered to congress for them to review and act on and only unsealed if they dont act. The American people have a right to know and a right to know if their congress didn't act.

I thought that the Rehnquist Court's decision to allow Slick to be sued by Paula Jones while he was in office over allegations he did things BEFORE he became potus was one of the worst decisions I can think of. At the time the Court po-poed notions that the case would have political ramifications

We don't want Courts deciding issues of crimes and personal law suits that involve things other than the actual actions a president takes when carrying out his official duties. Anything else should wait until the person is out of office. Doing it any other way just invites people to use courts to score political hit points.

That's all separate from whether a potus can be indicted in criminal (or civil) court on allegations that he's misused the office, or illegally obtained the office. And there are two aspects of that question.

Should the president have the power to keep us from knowing what actions he's allegedly taken that are abuses of official power? The only way to keep an Attny General from deep sixing charges is to file an indictment, because an indictment is a public document that is supposed to be open, although a judge can order stuff blacked out. I think the indictment is necessary to keep any president from evading checks and balances ... because if his party controls congress, there won't be any publicity.

Second is the question of whether courts have any real jurisdiction to try a president for abuse of power, while he's in office, or whether the only way to try him/her on abuses is in congress. I don't trust congress. But people have a remedy even with a corrupt congress. We can vote the bastards out if they don't have the power to hide the shit they're up to, and that goes back to an indictment.

I don't know about sealed indictments. I think people have a right to know about any allegation of misuse of power. Even if it's as lame as Corsi's birther bullshit.

I agree. Maybe we needed a guy so corrupted like this to sort of pressure test our system and get us thinking about the possible shortcomings inherent to our system.

I just feel that if the Senate fails to meet their moral obligation, then something like indictments needs to happen to remind us of why this was undertaken or to reiterate the significance of this moment in history. Some sort of black eye or shitstorm to highlight it for future generations.

Like I said before. If impeachment doesn't work in this case. When will it ever?

 

[bendog]

I don't think impeachment is really an issue. Impeachment "should be" (although the gop's record on this is shitty at best) a remedy when elections don't work.

So long as Americans are informed and free to vote, and president is not in jail or otherwise indisposed and can't do the job, it shouldn't be on the table.

The charge against Johnson included that he refused to abide by at least one law passed over his veto.

With Nixon, he faced at least 300 House votes of conspiracy to use the govt itself (CIA) as part of obstruction of justice.

Arguably the election process will not work if a potus refuses to abide by legally enacted laws or if the potus is actively using govt itself to break laws.

And that is the danger of allowing Trump the opportunity to tell and AG to not release Mueller's report. I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly think Trump would try that. If he did it would Nixonian and just don't have any faith that McConnell would protect the constitution.

 

[Care4all]

this is a long thread and I have only read the op,

so let's start with what the constitution ACTUALLY SAYS on it


The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments 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.



...............

it simply states in the last sentence the person impeached SHALL be liable and subject to indictment in a court of law, according to Law...

SHALL means MUST be indicted for their crimes in a court of law....

Ford, pardoning Nixon, broke our constitution because this removed the SHALL.... no?

By waiting to charge the president, instead of while still sitting, removes the ability to indict them because of the new president, old VP's pardoning power...

but the constitution says THEY MUST be indicted by using the word SHALL?

 

[Care4all]

the restriction of charging a president with a crime with punishment according to law seems to solely be a restriction on the Senate/congress impeachment process... THEY can not count their political impeachment process as a LEGAL process, with a jury of his peers, with due process, discovery, Miranda rights and other legal protections given... imo

 

[bendog]

Ok dummy, you are the one wanting to remove a President on indictments alone, I think it is very dangerous just for that reason.

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

I don't see what's wrong with an indictment being filed. Actually, it might be necessary to file an indictment to stop a statute of limitations running on a crime like .... sexual harassment, which could apply easily to Slick or Trump. But the SC, or any court, could still find a sitting president can't be tried on an indictment.

It's not clear that anyone in the DOJ actually wants a trial for Trump. At least while he's in office. But should the new AG be able to keep us from hearing what Mueller may contend shows collusion between Trump and foreign actors? I don't think so. Whether he ever faces legal consequences for anything he might have done in the campaign is a separate issue imo. Personally, I'm not much interesting is prosecuting political crimes.

If he laundered money or cheated on taxes ... he can be prosecuted on that after he's out of office. But he's the president. He gave up any right to privacy to biz dealings that were not part of a blind trust he had no say in.

I have no interest in seeing a sitting president prosecuted either. Unfortunately in this climate, congress cannot be trusted to act in a non partisan way.

No level of corruption should be tolerated in a president. This president is turning out to be perhaps the most corrupt in history.
If the impeachment process isn't applied or fails to remove this president, then when will it ever work?

Maybe sealed indictments should be made and delivered to congress for them to review and act on and only unsealed if they dont act. The American people have a right to know and a right to know if their congress didn't act.

I thought that the Rehnquist Court's decision to allow Slick to be sued by Paula Jones while he was in office over allegations he did things BEFORE he became potus was one of the worst decisions I can think of. At the time the Court po-poed notions that the case would have political ramifications

We don't want Courts deciding issues of crimes and personal law suits that involve things other than the actual actions a president takes when carrying out his official duties. Anything else should wait until the person is out of office. Doing it any other way just invites people to use courts to score political hit points.

That's all separate from whether a potus can be indicted in criminal (or civil) court on allegations that he's misused the office, or illegally obtained the office. And there are two aspects of that question.

Should the president have the power to keep us from knowing what actions he's allegedly taken that are abuses of official power? The only way to keep an Attny General from deep sixing charges is to file an indictment, because an indictment is a public document that is supposed to be open, although a judge can order stuff blacked out. I think the indictment is necessary to keep any president from evading checks and balances ... because if his party controls congress, there won't be any publicity.

Second is the question of whether courts have any real jurisdiction to try a president for abuse of power, while he's in office, or whether the only way to try him/her on abuses is in congress. I don't trust congress. But people have a remedy even with a corrupt congress. We can vote the bastards out if they don't have the power to hide the shit they're up to, and that goes back to an indictment.

I don't know about sealed indictments. I think people have a right to know about any allegation of misuse of power. Even if it's as lame as Corsi's birther bullshit.

I agree. Maybe we needed a guy so corrupted like this to sort of pressure test our system and get us thinking about the possible shortcomings inherent to our system.

I just feel that if the Senate fails to meet their moral obligation, then something like indictments needs to happen to remind us of why this was undertaken or to reiterate the significance of this moment in history. Some sort of black eye or shitstorm to highlight it for future generations.

Like I said before. If impeachment doesn't work in this case. When will it ever?

Well, it Trump does something like firing Mueller and putting a lid on any of files and unfinished investigation or report, then Pelosi may not have a choice. The House could conceivably just be the new home of an investigation.

But hopefully there are enough sane people still in the executive branch to tell Trump why it never has to go so far. His worst outcome of this - and that assumes he's guilty as hell of breaking election law with Assange and the Ruskies - is he goes back to making money in 2020 and can play the victim card to get the Trumpanzes money.

 

[Care4all]

Nope, I've never said that, liar. In fact I've said just the opposite.

In fact, I'll go further. Let's legislate a process wherein the indictment process can be delayed or halted if congress feels it is it not warranted, is otherwise frivilous, or comes at a time inconvienient to national. security.

I don't see what's wrong with an indictment being filed. Actually, it might be necessary to file an indictment to stop a statute of limitations running on a crime like .... sexual harassment, which could apply easily to Slick or Trump. But the SC, or any court, could still find a sitting president can't be tried on an indictment.

It's not clear that anyone in the DOJ actually wants a trial for Trump. At least while he's in office. But should the new AG be able to keep us from hearing what Mueller may contend shows collusion between Trump and foreign actors? I don't think so. Whether he ever faces legal consequences for anything he might have done in the campaign is a separate issue imo. Personally, I'm not much interesting is prosecuting political crimes.

If he laundered money or cheated on taxes ... he can be prosecuted on that after he's out of office. But he's the president. He gave up any right to privacy to biz dealings that were not part of a blind trust he had no say in.

I have no interest in seeing a sitting president prosecuted either. Unfortunately in this climate, congress cannot be trusted to act in a non partisan way.

No level of corruption should be tolerated in a president. This president is turning out to be perhaps the most corrupt in history.
If the impeachment process isn't applied or fails to remove this president, then when will it ever work?

Maybe sealed indictments should be made and delivered to congress for them to review and act on and only unsealed if they dont act. The American people have a right to know and a right to know if their congress didn't act.

I thought that the Rehnquist Court's decision to allow Slick to be sued by Paula Jones while he was in office over allegations he did things BEFORE he became potus was one of the worst decisions I can think of. At the time the Court po-poed notions that the case would have political ramifications

We don't want Courts deciding issues of crimes and personal law suits that involve things other than the actual actions a president takes when carrying out his official duties. Anything else should wait until the person is out of office. Doing it any other way just invites people to use courts to score political hit points.

That's all separate from whether a potus can be indicted in criminal (or civil) court on allegations that he's misused the office, or illegally obtained the office. And there are two aspects of that question.

Should the president have the power to keep us from knowing what actions he's allegedly taken that are abuses of official power? The only way to keep an Attny General from deep sixing charges is to file an indictment, because an indictment is a public document that is supposed to be open, although a judge can order stuff blacked out. I think the indictment is necessary to keep any president from evading checks and balances ... because if his party controls congress, there won't be any publicity.

Second is the question of whether courts have any real jurisdiction to try a president for abuse of power, while he's in office, or whether the only way to try him/her on abuses is in congress. I don't trust congress. But people have a remedy even with a corrupt congress. We can vote the bastards out if they don't have the power to hide the shit they're up to, and that goes back to an indictment.

I don't know about sealed indictments. I think people have a right to know about any allegation of misuse of power. Even if it's as lame as Corsi's birther bullshit.

I agree. Maybe we needed a guy so corrupted like this to sort of pressure test our system and get us thinking about the possible shortcomings inherent to our system.

I just feel that if the Senate fails to meet their moral obligation, then something like indictments needs to happen to remind us of why this was undertaken or to reiterate the significance of this moment in history. Some sort of black eye or shitstorm to highlight it for future generations.

Like I said before. If impeachment doesn't work in this case. When will it ever?

Well, it Trump does something like firing Mueller and putting a lid on any of files and unfinished investigation or report, then Pelosi may not have a choice. The House could conceivably just be the new home of an investigation.

But hopefully there are enough sane people still in the executive branch to tell Trump why it never has to go so far. His worst outcome of this - and that assumes he's guilty as hell of breaking election law with Assange and the Ruskies - is he goes back to making money in 2020 and can play the victim card to get the Trumpanzes money.

read my 2 posts above... it say a person impeached SHALL face prosecution???? SHALL means MUST....

the constitution does not say MAY face prosecution????