Perhaps time to challenge why a POTUS cannot be indicted

[Polishprince]

Interesting dilemma

What if a third of the Senate is willing to overlook criminal acts to maintain political power?

How about if a 1/3 of the Senate doesn't believe the prosecution met the burden of proof and the President is innocent?

 

[MisterBeale]

Mueller’s theory: Trump defrauded voters
Mueller's theory: Trump defrauded voters

Power Line


RIGHT BIAS

Factual Reporting: HIGH

IDGF about bias, will use left and right.

Refute the logic of point or go the **** away.

Power Line - Media Bias/Fact Check

 

[nat4900]

No, not at all. If the House and Senate didn't believe he was guilty, they would have a moral obligation to acquit him of the charges. Why would they be "obliged"

Nitwit..........congress would be obliged since the JUDICIAL SYSTEM (a co-equal part of our system) PROVED a president guilt.......

Please find a grown up to help you.

 

[Polishprince]

No, not at all. If the House and Senate didn't believe he was guilty, they would have a moral obligation to acquit him of the charges. Why would they be "obliged"

Nitwit..........congress would be obliged since the JUDICIAL SYSTEM (a co-equal part of our system) PROVED a president guilt.......

Please find a grown up to help you.

Its the Senate's job to determine if something is a high crime or misdemeanor worthy of removing someone from office, not the Judicial Branch.

 

[nat4900]

Factual Reporting: HIGH

IDGF about bias, will use left and right.

Refute the logic of point or go the **** away.

Power Line - Media Bias/Fact Check

Nitwit.......you are getting your talking points for a right wing blog and treating it as gospel "truth"........which is exactly what ignorant morons do.

 

[bendog]

Lets bear in mind that there is nothing in our Constitution or any statute that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted.......What we have is just an "opinion" from the DOJ basically stating that a president has too many issues to contend with to be burdened with "legal" headaches (never mind the golfing outings and campaign rallies.)

Anyway, under this corrupt administration it may be an optimum time to challenge the notion whether a sitting president is above the law or not....Don't you think?

Assuming the New AG will bury the report and not release it to the House, getting a US attorney to file an indictment specifying the facts alleged, and the proof that can be shown, to support charges may be the only way to tell Americans what Trump's links to Russia are ... assuming there's enough there to support a jury finding him guilty of some conspiracy of illegal money transaction.

I'm not in favor of starting to indict presidents, but if they'd use their offices to deny Americans facts that may be provable ..... that's arguably a worse crime than a conspiracy to get Rusky help.

 

[Indeependent]

Trump committed a crime?

 

[nat4900]

ts the Senate's job to determine if something is a high crime or misdemeanor worthy of removing someone from office, not the Judicial Branch.

One last ******* time for dense Trump ass kissers like you........

It is the responsibility of the House to impeach and the Senate to oust a president.....

It is the responsibility of the judicial system to indict, try, convict AND sentence a president..

 

[Indeependent]

ts the Senate's job to determine if something is a high crime or misdemeanor worthy of removing someone from office, not the Judicial Branch.

One last ******* time for dense Trump ass kissers like you........

It is the responsibility of the House to impeach and the Senate to oust a president.....

It is the responsibility of the judicial system to indict, try, convict AND sentence a president..

What’s the crime?

 

[Polishprince]

What the Mule fails to realize is that paying Hush Money is 100% legal. Further, the payment of Hush Money doesn't indicate that the payor is guilty of a dam thing. No crime here, sorry.

 

[Indeependent]

What the Mule fails to realize is that paying Hush Money is 100% legal. Further, the payment of Hush Money doesn't indicate that the payor is guilty of a dam thing. No crime here, sorry.

Trump admitted this months ago.
The news cycle must be truly lacking news.

 

[Polishprince]

ts the Senate's job to determine if something is a high crime or misdemeanor worthy of removing someone from office, not the Judicial Branch.

One last ******* time for dense Trump ass kissers like you........

It is the responsibility of the House to impeach and the Senate to oust a president.....

It is the responsibility of the judicial system to indict, try, convict AND sentence a president..

Exactly.

And if the Senate doesn't think the President should be ousted, it is their right to acquit him. In fact, its their duty to acquit the man. Just like when the leftist Arlen Specter acquitted Slick Willy on the basis of Scottish Law.

 

[rightwinger]

Interesting dilemma

What if a third of the Senate is willing to overlook criminal acts to maintain political power?

How about if a 1/3 of the Senate doesn't believe the prosecution met the burden of proof and the President is innocent?

That is the intent
Same goes for criminal prosecution

But what if Senators are more concerned with their political asses than ensuring criminal activity is punished

 

[bendog]

Trump committed a crime?

non-independent thinker, that's the issue. Did Trump commit a crime and must Trump release the Mueller report so we can decide for ourselves whether we think he did or didn't

 

[bendog]

ts the Senate's job to determine if something is a high crime or misdemeanor worthy of removing someone from office, not the Judicial Branch.

One last ******* time for dense Trump ass kissers like you........

It is the responsibility of the House to impeach and the Senate to oust a president.....

It is the responsibility of the judicial system to indict, try, convict AND sentence a president..

Exactly.

And if the Senate doesn't think the President should be ousted, it is their right to acquit him. In fact, its their duty to acquit the man. Just like when the leftist Arlen Specter acquitted Slick Willy on the basis of Scottish Law.

I figured it was cause the senators were getting knob waxing by interns too.

 

[jknowgood]

Obama set the bar for Presidential indictment very high with Solyndra, Fast and Furious, cash payments to a terrorist state and dereliction of duty as Commander-In-Chief during the Benghazi massacre.

Don't forget to wipe, flush and wash your hands after that "conclusion" that SURELY came out of one of your orifices.....

(don't forget to also include being half black to your list of indictable Obama offenses.)

So being black makes it okay to break the law?

 

[Polishprince]

Interesting dilemma

What if a third of the Senate is willing to overlook criminal acts to maintain political power?

How about if a 1/3 of the Senate doesn't believe the prosecution met the burden of proof and the President is innocent?

That is the intent
Same goes for criminal prosecution

But what if Senators are more concerned with their political asses than ensuring criminal activity is punished

Its not the Senate's job to punish criminal activity. Their sole role in this is to determine if a President should be removed from office, based upon their own ideas

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Again there is a process in place to remove a President to do so any other way would truly destabilize the government for decades and decades.

NO ONE is disputing the current procedure for impeachment........What this thread is about is the REMOVAL of the DOJ guideline (not a law) for indicting a sitting president on criminal charges when warranted..........This is what this thread is about.

Think, nat, for just a second.

Suppose President Trump were indicted and convicted and sent to prison. He would still be President, while hanging out in the yard with the rest of the guys. And considering the fact that the Bureau of Corrections is under his Dept. of Justice, it would be sort of bizarre, no?

He would be indicted and then congress would have no choice but to impeach and remove him.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Interesting dilemma

What if a third of the Senate is willing to overlook criminal acts to maintain political power?

How about if a 1/3 of the Senate doesn't believe the prosecution met the burden of proof and the President is innocent?

That is the intent
Same goes for criminal prosecution

But what if Senators are more concerned with their political asses than ensuring criminal activity is punished

Its not the Senate's job to punish criminal activity. Their sole role in this is to determine if a President should be removed from office, based upon their own ideas

Or based on criminality.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Lets bear in mind that there is nothing in our Constitution or any statute that prohibits a sitting president from being indicted.......What we have is just an "opinion" from the DOJ basically stating that a president has too many issues to contend with to be burdened with "legal" headaches (never mind the golfing outings and campaign rallies.)

Anyway, under this corrupt administration it may be an optimum time to challenge the notion whether a sitting president is above the law or not....Don't you think?

Geee...I wonder why you posted this with a Republican in office, LOL. Dumb leftist.