Quote: @A1Janitor said:
LOL
The president has due process rights, even in impeachment.
For instance, to be present and confront witnesses in congressional hearings.
Make it all public. Like Trump wants.
Yes, if and when he is impeached.
This is an inquiry, not an impeachment, therefore there's no due process.
If you're still confused, read the 2nd sentence again. If you're still confused, ask a liberal friend to explain it using smaller words.
Quote: @medaille said:
@ savannahskol said:
@ mblack said:
Let me clarify, Trumps lawyers are arguing that the president can't be investigated nor prosecuted while in office. Quoting from the exchange "nothing can be done while he is in office". That is simply crazy.
If you had linked to the comments you're referring to, it might help to understand/alleviate your consternation.
Since you didn't link... I'll refer you back to my previous post, as your answer.
Why would you take the time/effort to investigate....if you knew you couldn't prosecute?
Why would you chase loose wimmen.....if you were impotent?
Again...the constitutionally prescribed method (backed up by the DOJ OLC) of investigating/removing a POTUS is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
By design, it's ultimately a 'political' process not a 'criminal' one....altho there are some parallels.
That said... enemies of a POTUS have been known to use banana-republic tactics to circumvent the constitution. 
I just don’t think there’s any way forward where Donald
Trump is getting impeached and convicted (at least before the election). Nothing is going to make it through the
senate. I don’t think they’re dumb
enough to do it and think it would work.
I think this whole thing is a dog and pony show to continue the
narrative that Trump is some horrible bad guy and people need to vote democrat
far and wide. I think it’s another thing
that will drag on forever, get a ton of media attention, but won’t lead
anywhere because it’s not meant to ever be over, it’s just meant for creating
news headlines before the election.
I agree.
Too many Republicans will toe the company line in the Senate.Trump could commit murder and the Senate GOP will protect him.
Which is really fucking sad, that Republicans and their supporters are cool with POTUS yet AGAIN asking a foreign nation to interfere in our election and that the President is above the law.
But since you don't care about the precedent being set and pissing all over the Constitution, I hope some extreme left President comes in and acts like a complete asshole, commits dozens of crimes that he can't be held accountable for, bans the Confederate flags and replaces all of them with rainbow flags and paints the White House hot pink, holds gay pride rallies every single day in a different city, and spends his days at the pool tweeting about loser conservatives and Fox News.
Quote: @savannahskol said:
@ mblack said:
Let me clarify, Trumps lawyers are arguing that the president can't be investigated nor prosecuted while in office. Quoting from the exchange "nothing can be done while he is in office". That is simply crazy.
If you had linked to the comments you're referring to, it might help to understand/alleviate your consternation.
Since you didn't link... I'll refer you back to my previous post, as your answer.
Why would you take the time/effort to investigate....if you knew you couldn't prosecute?
Why would you chase loose wimmen.....if you were impotent?
Again...the constitutionally prescribed method (backed up by the DOJ OLC) of investigating/removing a POTUS is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
By design, it's ultimately a 'political' process not a 'criminal' one....altho there are some parallels.
That said... enemies of a POTUS have been known to use banana-republic tactics to circumvent the constitution.
Links....
Trump attorney says president can shoot someone and not be charged in office
Here is foot note 36 of the same DOG OLC you cited above that says the president can indeed be investigated...
DOG OLC Footnote 36
Quote:On the one hand, there may be less reason to fear a prejudicial loss of evidence in the criminal context. A grand jury could continue to gather evidence throughout the period of immunity, even passing this task down to subsequently empaneled grand juries if necessary. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)©(iii). Moreover, in the event of suspicion of serious wrongdoing by a sitting President, the media and even Congress (through its own investigatory powers) would likely pursue, collect and preserve evidence as well. These multiple mechanisms for securing and preserving evidence could mitigate somewhat the effect of a particular witness's failed recollection or demise. By contrast, many civil litigants would lack the resources and incentives to pursue and preserve evidence in the same comprehensive manner.
On the other hand, the consequences of any prejudicial loss of evidence that does occur in the criminal context are more grave, given the presumptively greater stakes for both for the United States and the defendant in criminal litigation. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 711-13, 713 (in emphasizing the importance of access to evidence in a pending criminal trial, giving significant weight in the constitutional balance to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice").
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
@ medaille said:
@ savannahskol said:
@ mblack said:
Let me clarify, Trumps lawyers are arguing that the president can't be investigated nor prosecuted while in office. Quoting from the exchange "nothing can be done while he is in office". That is simply crazy.
If you had linked to the comments you're referring to, it might help to understand/alleviate your consternation.
Since you didn't link... I'll refer you back to my previous post, as your answer.
Why would you take the time/effort to investigate....if you knew you couldn't prosecute?
Why would you chase loose wimmen.....if you were impotent?
Again...the constitutionally prescribed method (backed up by the DOJ OLC) of investigating/removing a POTUS is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
By design, it's ultimately a 'political' process not a 'criminal' one....altho there are some parallels.
That said... enemies of a POTUS have been known to use banana-republic tactics to circumvent the constitution.
I just don’t think there’s any way forward where Donald
Trump is getting impeached and convicted (at least before the election). Nothing is going to make it through the
senate. I don’t think they’re dumb
enough to do it and think it would work.
I think this whole thing is a dog and pony show to continue the
narrative that Trump is some horrible bad guy and people need to vote democrat
far and wide. I think it’s another thing
that will drag on forever, get a ton of media attention, but won’t lead
anywhere because it’s not meant to ever be over, it’s just meant for creating
news headlines before the election.
I agree.
Too many Republicans will toe the company line in the Senate.Trump could commit murder and the Senate GOP will protect him.
Which is really fucking sad, that Republicans and their supporters are cool with POTUS yet AGAIN asking a foreign nation to interfere in our election and that the President is above the law.
But since you don't care about the precedent being set and pissing all over the Constitution, I hope some extreme left President comes in and acts like a complete asshole, commits dozens of crimes that he can't be held accountable for, bans the Confederate flags and replaces all of them with rainbow flags and paints the White House hot pink, holds gay pride rallies every single day in a different city, and spends his days at the pool tweeting about loser conservatives and Fox News.
Nice dream. Put in "confiscate all the guns and bibles" and I'm sold!
LMAO
You have to name the crime before you prosecute.
We have no crime!
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
LMAO
You have to name the crime before you prosecute.
We have no crime!
Which is it? First it was... no crime then it was a crime and the president has immunity now we are back to no crime. How about Stormy Daniel's hush money payments? Campaign finance violations? Sudden closing down of the Trump Foundation? Don't all those warrant an investigation of campaign violation laws?
All these point to the need for an investigation.
You are really grasping at straws here
For fucks sakes.
The president has immunity from being prosecuted fro crimes until he leaves office.
The president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. What is the fucking crime to impeach him for?
He was cleared on stormy daniels. Why? Because there is another motive to make the payments ... protect his family for instance.
You forget Obama paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for campaign finance violations. It isn’t an impeachable offense for Obama, it isn’t an impeachable offense for Trump. It happened before he was elected.
I don’t have the info regarding the trump foundation. I did read that he donated more to it than he received. I also know the Clinton Foundation is under investigation for huge fraud by Huber. We are awaiting those reports.
What is Adam Schiff investigating? I thought it was the “whistleblower” CIA spy who didn’t hear the conversation - but Trump released to expose the whistleblower as a lie.
Please understand - you need a crime to start the impeachment process. You don’t start it on suppositions and political nonsense. Name the crime - and hold the investigation.
Don’t start an investigation looking for a crime.
Keep watching. The truth is coming out.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ Viking1987 said:
not. to mention the democracts. ongoing secret. meetings
If you believe that I suggest investing in real estate, because I have a beautiful bridge in San Francisco to sell you.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that Republicans now believe they can say anything they want--anything at all--and a large percentage of their base will just believe it.
You mean things like: large hairy men can call themselves women and then they get to compete in women's powerlifting competitions? Crazy, ridiculous things like that?
Wow, this really has you upset. Maybe don't skip leg day and you can re-enter next year.
No, I'm talking about the "secret meetings" that four dozen republicans are in.
Legs??? Legs are for sissies. I'm an abs man. In fact, I have perfected my workout... so that all my ab muscles have been combined into one big muscular bulge that juts out from just below my chest... and continues on in all its magnificent glory, all the way down to my belt.
I don't know anything about the secret meetings. But I'm quite sure that there is very little that I will read- on any website- that will give me the absolute and unbiased truth. So I don't believe anything that anyone says.
Quote: @mblack said:
@ savannahskol said:
@ mblack said:
Let me clarify, Trumps lawyers are arguing that the president can't be investigated nor prosecuted while in office. Quoting from the exchange "nothing can be done while he is in office". That is simply crazy.
If you had linked to the comments you're referring to, it might help to understand/alleviate your consternation.
Since you didn't link... I'll refer you back to my previous post, as your answer.
Why would you take the time/effort to investigate....if you knew you couldn't prosecute?
Why would you chase loose wimmen.....if you were impotent?
Again...the constitutionally prescribed method (backed up by the DOJ OLC) of investigating/removing a POTUS is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
By design, it's ultimately a 'political' process not a 'criminal' one....altho there are some parallels.
That said... enemies of a POTUS have been known to use banana-republic tactics to circumvent the constitution.
Links....
Here is foot note 36 of the same DOG OLC you cited above that says the president can indeed be investigated...
DOG OLC Footnote 36
Quote:On the one hand, there may be less reason to fear a prejudicial loss of evidence in the criminal context. A grand jury could continue to gather evidence throughout the period of immunity, even passing this task down to subsequently empaneled grand juries if necessary. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)©(iii). Moreover, in the event of suspicion of serious wrongdoing by a sitting President, the media and even Congress (through its own investigatory powers) would likely pursue, collect and preserve evidence as well. These multiple mechanisms for securing and preserving evidence could mitigate somewhat the effect of a particular witness's failed recollection or demise. By contrast, many civil litigants would lack the resources and incentives to pursue and preserve evidence in the same comprehensive manner.
On the other hand, the consequences of any prejudicial loss of evidence that does occur in the criminal context are more grave, given the presumptively greater stakes for both for the United States and the defendant in criminal litigation. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 711-13, 713 (in emphasizing the importance of access to evidence in a pending criminal trial, giving significant weight in the constitutional balance to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice").
Thanks for the link, to the latest brouhaha @ the 2nd circuit.
(BTW, the 2 2nd circuit judges quoted? One - Katzmann - a Clinton appointee & one - Chin - an Obama appointee. shocker.  )
Your footnote only relates to possibly empaneling a grand jury to preserve evidence, through the period of IMMUNITY (from prosecution). Tell me you get the distinction.
prosecutor empanels grand jury > prosecutor presents case to gj > gj recommends indictment > trial
Having a gj (whose presence is to remain secret) for the sole purpose of preserving evidence, is a far cry from presenting a case for indictment > securing indictment > trial
read sections 2. 4-5 of your link for the overwhelming OLC consensus that the POTUS is immune from criminal prosecution. The OLC memoranda makes clear they don't want an indictment, let alone a trial.
Article 2 section 2 of the constitution trumps DOJ OLC guiding memoranda; even tho they both are in agreement/consistent with each other.
I'd advise you to stop grasping at straws, but there's no straw here.
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
For fucks sakes.
The president has immunity from being prosecuted fro crimes until he leaves office.
The president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. What is the fucking crime to impeach him for?
He was cleared on stormy daniels. Why? Because there is another motive to make the payments ... protect his family for instance.
You forget Obama paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for campaign finance violations. It isn’t an impeachable offense for Obama, it isn’t an impeachable offense for Trump. It happened before he was elected.
I don’t have the info regarding the trump foundation. I did read that he donated more to it than he received. I also know the Clinton Foundation is under investigation for huge fraud by Huber. We are awaiting those reports.
What is Adam Schiff investigating? I thought it was the “whistleblower” CIA spy who didn’t hear the conversation - but Trump released to expose the whistleblower as a lie.
Please understand - you need a crime to start the impeachment process. You don’t start it on suppositions and political nonsense. Name the crime - and hold the investigation.
Don’t start an investigation looking for a crime.
Keep watching. The truth is coming out.
I am using my phone and dont have the time to edit excerpts for you. So here are links...
- Campaign violation. Read this. Maybe you will learn that what Trump did and what Obama did are not comparable. It attempts to explain the difference
- About Foundations..at least the Clinton foundation is being investigated (the Clinton's have the dignity to allow an investigation) meaning it could go either way (guilty or not guilty) unlike the Trumps who shut theirs down to prevent an investigation. I wonder why?
- Regarding crime for impeachment there was already one. The notorious Ukraine call. The call that the president said was perfect.. then realised it was not. Then said there was no proof of a quo then was provided evidence and now he is insulting people left and right.
|
