Quote: @"savannahskol" said:
@"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....
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").
Thanks for the link, to the latest brouhaha @ the 2nd circuit.
(BTW, the 2 2nd circuit judges quoted? One a Clinton appointee & one 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.
We are going in circles. Trumps lawyers dont want him investigated because he has immunity (their core arguement). Which is wrong and you have equally stated (gathering evidence). The case is about investigating whether Trump or his company broke any state laws when they reimbursed former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen for hush-money payments.
Trumps lawyers don't want that to happen as part of the requested evidence involve his taxes.
And as you have stated above there is no law that prohibits this. That is where footnote 36 comes in.
I am not sure if you followed the entire hearing but there was significant discussion about guarantees of keeping the information sealed (if they were ever granted the info) of which Trumps lawyers said that was the core of the "fear of irreparable damage" (that they would not guarantee that the info would stay sealed and not shared with others and it would cause great damage if shared) and the reason they did not want to turn over that info as part of the investigation. The SDNY lawyers argued that they subpoena people's taxes all the time and the president's is no different provided they had a compelling case which they had demonstrated that they had. Trump's lawyers disagreed that this was a copied subpoena etc....
I explain all these to show that this was all about info gathering which is supported the OLC footnote
Quote: @"SFVikeFan" said:
@"medaille" said:
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.
I watched the video of Trumps rally in Minneapolis. A very large portion of it was coming with
the frame of draining the swamp (as was one of his campaign slogans). I was a liberal throughout the 2nd
Bush presidency and I was convinced of both parties being swampy at that
time. I think Trumps base is very much
anti-corruption, more so than most Democrats are, who I think are more
anti-Trump than anti-corruption. I think
the problem the Democrats are going to have is that no one trusts them. There’s a whole lot of pot calling kettle
black right now. They and the media have
been crying wolf against one person for 3 years now, each week with more
extreme accusations than the last, and people are fatigued with it. Their target is one person, amongst a whole
swampy government. What they should have
done is thrown Biden under the bus and lumped him together with Trump. Then at least they would have the appearance that
their accusations against Trump are genuinely anti-corruption and not political
in nature. I think that the things Trump
is accused of are common place in our political landscape amongst both parties
and I think we need to move forward and clean up our government. I don’t think the Democrats have any desire
to clean up Washington. I don’t think
they have pure motives. I think they are
looking at the upcoming election and seeing that they’re going to lose pretty
hard, because they don’t have any real policies and haven’t had for years. They’re mostly running on “Majority people
are bad, marginalized people are good, vote for us because that person is bad
and hates marginalized people” type platforms and people are sick of that. People want real change, not finger pointing,
and the only Democrats offering real change are offering Socialism, which no
one wants.
Quote: @"pumpf" said:
@"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.
Probably not, but I will: "Secret Meetings" is a talking point used by republicans to promote the idea that what is happening is the result of a "left wing mob" trying to overthrow a duly elected president "behind closed doors" and not a bipartisan proceeding not unlike--actually, exactly like--the Benghazi hearings. It's entirely untrue. It's propaganda meant to piss off Trumpkins. And of course it works. Our friend with the bad punctuation has already fallen for it.
Sorry to hear about your, um, ab. Try OMAD (one meal a day). Lost 20 lbs in about 8 weeks. It's beautiful. I can't eat breakfast. Never have been able to. Just drink coffee. I sometimes forgot to eat lunch so it wasn't a huge adjustment to eliminate that. And that means when I get home at night, I can pretty much pig out for supper, eat whatever I want, and still be under budget in terms of calories.
Quote: @"Viking1987" said:
not. to mention the democracts. ongoing secret. meetings
Are you posting from a flip phone? Seriously, your grammar and spelling is mind boggling.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
Sorry to hear about your, um, ab. Try OMAD (one meal a day). Lost 20 lbs in about 8 weeks. It's beautiful. I can't eat breakfast. Never have been able to. Just drink coffee. I sometimes forgot to eat lunch so it wasn't a huge adjustment to eliminate that. And that means when I get home at night, I can pretty much pig out for supper, eat whatever I want, and still be under budget in terms of calories.
What is your typical dinner?
I started doing this and lost weight. Should have stuck with it.
I would be happy to see Trump investigated- and convicted- if he has committed any crimes. HOWEVER... I don't think it is "justice" when the only people who are being accused of crimes are politicians from "the other side". Democrats have broken all kinds of laws- as have Republicans. But both sides seem (to me) to refuse to police their own... while scouring the law books for ANY little thing they can pin on the other side. Now, in my biased opinion, Republicans have been "better" at policing their own... but that's not saying much.
What I AM saying... is that if "we the people" want justice, we have to demand it- no matter who is being investigated... not just when it fits a preconceived narrative or helps a political agenda. Like I said a long time ago: if Cruz had been elected, the Democrats would've been just as eager to try to tear him down. The difference is that Trump is alot less likely to put up with it (or adhere to expected mores or behaviors). That's why- for alot of us, even those of us who didn't vote for Trump- all the accusations are just background noise that isn't worth listening to. After hearing "you guys" yell, "Wolf! Wolf! so many times... it just isn't worth listening to anymore... EVEN IF you're actually right this time.
Quote: @"A1Janitor" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
Sorry to hear about your, um, ab. Try OMAD (one meal a day). Lost 20 lbs in about 8 weeks. It's beautiful. I can't eat breakfast. Never have been able to. Just drink coffee. I sometimes forgot to eat lunch so it wasn't a huge adjustment to eliminate that. And that means when I get home at night, I can pretty much pig out for supper, eat whatever I want, and still be under budget in terms of calories.
What is your typical dinner?
I started doing this and lost weight. Should have stuck with it.
I still try to avoid carbs and go heavy on protein, but the beauty of it is that I don't really have to if I don't want to. By the time dinner rolls around, I'm still way under 200 cals (coffee, maybe an apple).
My size and activity level (lift lightly 3 or 4 days a week) means that I can consume around 1600 calories and still be on a "lose weight" pace. So if I'm out with friends, I can have a few beers and pizza. If I have a craving for cheeseburgers I can do that too. The occasional donut doesn't kill me either. That's what I love about it.
But mostly I still try to eat healthy at dinner. My go-to dinner, probably 3 or 4 days a week, is QDoba or Chipotle. Burrito bowl, no rice, black beans--here's the secret: half chicken, half steak--costs no more, but you end up with more protein just through spoon error *LOL*, then load up on the healthy stuff: pico, guac, lettuce. Could have it every day if I had to.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"A1Janitor" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
Sorry to hear about your, um, ab. Try OMAD (one meal a day). Lost 20 lbs in about 8 weeks. It's beautiful. I can't eat breakfast. Never have been able to. Just drink coffee. I sometimes forgot to eat lunch so it wasn't a huge adjustment to eliminate that. And that means when I get home at night, I can pretty much pig out for supper, eat whatever I want, and still be under budget in terms of calories.
What is your typical dinner?
I started doing this and lost weight. Should have stuck with it.
I still try to avoid carbs and go heavy on protein, but the beauty of it is that I don't really have to if I don't want to. By the time dinner rolls around, I'm still way under 200 cals (coffee, maybe an apple).
My size and activity level (lift lightly 3 or 4 days a week) means that I can consume around 1600 calories and still be on a "lose weight" pace. So if I'm out with friends, I can have a few beers and pizza. If I have a craving for cheeseburgers I can do that too. The occasional donut doesn't kill me either. That's what I love about it.
But mostly I still try to eat healthy at dinner. My go-to dinner, probably 3 or 4 days a week, is QDoba or Chipotle. Burrito bowl, no rice, black beans--here's the secret: half chicken, half steak--costs no more, but you end up with more protein just through spoon error *LOL*, then load up on the healthy stuff: pico, guac, lettuce. Could have it every day if I had to.
The key is the coffee. Years ago I drank coffee all day.
This is very doable. I would sprinkle a yogurt or cottage cheese or raw fruit/veggies in occasionally.
I was thinking of doing this and having a new york strip with sauteed onions with spinach ir broccoli. Add a fee beers and I would be happy.
I will try it.
Quote: @"mblack" said
We are going in circles.
No, we're not.
Go Vikes!
Quote:@"RobertKatzmann" (Chief judge for the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals) wrote:
Instead, after reviewing historical and legal precedent, we conclude only that presidential immunity does not bar the enforcement of a state grand jury subpoena directing a third party to produce non-privileged material, even when the subject matter under investigation pertains to the President.
Now let's see what the Supreme court (the now highly politicized body by Trump) says. If you are counting it's now 2-0 against the president and his supporters.
|
