Donald Trump

HughFreakingDillon

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Why don’t the Dems just put forth a spending bill that includes verbiage of being for the wall once funding is secured from Mexico?

because trump claims mexico's funding of the wall will come from NAFTA 2.0. 

Then track the delta between old Nafta and new NAFTA and build the wall once you have the $. Put that wording in

dems don't want a wall. they want policy reform. a wall is not needed. 

calling his bluff won't do anything. 

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

question: I understand that most legal experts claim that a sitting president cannot be indicted. (which I still don't get, where does it explicitly state that?). But what about a president who wants to run for a second term? can that be prevented by a legal filing?

I've heard that they can be indicted for crimes committed before they were President, just not from while they were president.... I'm not sure what is really legally accurate in any case though. I really really think that the Constitution and/or whatever else involves these rules needs a major overhaul in this context. I think the existing rules/laws/assumptions are all based on the assumption that Americans would never elect a moronic, senile, corrupt, compromised, sociopathic criminal with zero interest in serving the people. Trump has proven that assumption wrong. Time to update the documents.

That can be done through a Constitutional Convention or an Amendment, both are extremely high hurdles to pass.  its' part of the genius of the Founding Fathers, that the process has worked so well for so long.  And I'm not convinced it is not working.  A president can be removed from office for any high crimes and misdemeanors, which theoretically is a lower bar than indicting the POTUS for felonies.  If it is the type of compelling evidence that warrants the legal conviction standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" then surely we can get it through impeachment.  At this point, I don't believe enough evidence has been put forth to convict Trump of anything in the court of law.  

Halifax2TheMax

HughFreakingDillon said:

ok, so I found this:

CAN A SITTING PRESIDENT BE INDICTED?

Legal experts are divided on that question. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the president can be indicted or whether the president can be subpoenaed for testimony.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice and guidance to executive branch agencies, has maintained that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Two Justice Department reports, one in 1973 and one in 2000, came to the same conclusion.

Those reports essentially concluded that the president’s responsibilities are so important that an indictment would pose too many risks for the government to function properly.

Trump’s lawyers have said that special counsel Robert Mueller plans to adhere to that guidance, though Mueller’s office has never independently confirmed that. Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has also said that a president cannot be indicted.

COULD TRUMP BE INDICTED ONCE HE LEAVES OFFICE?

There would presumably be no bar against charging a president after he leaves the White House.

Legal scholars have said that based on the Justice Department’s guidance, it would appear that Trump could be charged for wrongdoing during the campaign or as president once he leaves office, but likely not before that.

Blackman said the statute of limitations for a campaign finance law violation — like the one Cohen pleaded guilty to — would be five years. The payments to Daniels and McDougal were made in 2016, meaning the statute of limitations would run out in 2021.

Lawernce Tribe's argument is basically that the DOJ guidelines are unconstitutional. Its never been challenged. To answer your question above, no I can't because there is no such thing other than a DOJ "guideline" that states such. It would have to be challenged and the executive branch would argue that you can't indict a siitting president due to the importance of the role. Who knows? It'll be fast tracked to the SC and seeing how its stacked, it might be they'd agree with the DOJ. The issue I have is the precedent set would definitely result in an autocracy as what would keep a president "from shooting someone" or committing any number of other felonies, and a congress with firm majorities of the same party in both houses refusing to impeach?

mrussel1

...anything meaningful, in the court of law.

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

question: I understand that most legal experts claim that a sitting president cannot be indicted. (which I still don't get, where does it explicitly state that?). But what about a president who wants to run for a second term? can that be prevented by a legal filing?

I've heard that they can be indicted for crimes committed before they were President, just not from while they were president.... I'm not sure what is really legally accurate in any case though. I really really think that the Constitution and/or whatever else involves these rules needs a major overhaul in this context. I think the existing rules/laws/assumptions are all based on the assumption that Americans would never elect a moronic, senile, corrupt, compromised, sociopathic criminal with zero interest in serving the people. Trump has proven that assumption wrong. Time to update the documents.

That can be done through a Constitutional Convention or an Amendment, both are extremely high hurdles to pass.  its' part of the genius of the Founding Fathers, that the process has worked so well for so long.  And I'm not convinced it is not working.  A president can be removed from office for any high crimes and misdemeanors, which theoretically is a lower bar than indicting the POTUS for felonies.  If it is the type of compelling evidence that warrants the legal conviction standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" then surely we can get it through impeachment.  At this point, I don't believe enough evidence has been put forth to convict Trump of anything in the court of law.  

I don't think it's working. If it were, the POTUS wouldn't be able to get away with the crimes he's already committed as POTUS. Shit like influencing the stock market, continuing to profit from his businesses, which he's enriching with his position, which is a massive conflict of interest... ETC. The things Trump has done as POTUS are a real threat to America, and apparently nothing can stop him from doing these things.

HughFreakingDillon

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ok, so I found this:

CAN A SITTING PRESIDENT BE INDICTED?

Legal experts are divided on that question. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the president can be indicted or whether the president can be subpoenaed for testimony.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice and guidance to executive branch agencies, has maintained that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Two Justice Department reports, one in 1973 and one in 2000, came to the same conclusion.

Those reports essentially concluded that the president’s responsibilities are so important that an indictment would pose too many risks for the government to function properly.

Trump’s lawyers have said that special counsel Robert Mueller plans to adhere to that guidance, though Mueller’s office has never independently confirmed that. Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has also said that a president cannot be indicted.

COULD TRUMP BE INDICTED ONCE HE LEAVES OFFICE?

There would presumably be no bar against charging a president after he leaves the White House.

Legal scholars have said that based on the Justice Department’s guidance, it would appear that Trump could be charged for wrongdoing during the campaign or as president once he leaves office, but likely not before that.

Blackman said the statute of limitations for a campaign finance law violation — like the one Cohen pleaded guilty to — would be five years. The payments to Daniels and McDougal were made in 2016, meaning the statute of limitations would run out in 2021.

Lawernce Tribe's argument is basically that the DOJ guidelines are unconstitutional. Its never been challenged. To answer your question above, no I can't because there is no such thing other than a DOJ "guideline" that states such. It would have to be challenged and the executive branch would argue that you can't indict a siitting president due to the importance of the role. Who knows? It'll be fast tracked to the SC and seeing how its stacked, it might be they'd agree with the DOJ. The issue I have is the precedent set would definitely result in an autocracy as what would keep a president "from shooting someone" or committing any number of other felonies, and a congress with firm majorities of the same party in both houses refusing to impeach?

this whole "importance of the role" reason sounds absurd to me. isn't that the whole point of having a VP?

Halifax2TheMax

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ok, so I found this:

CAN A SITTING PRESIDENT BE INDICTED?

Legal experts are divided on that question. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the president can be indicted or whether the president can be subpoenaed for testimony.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice and guidance to executive branch agencies, has maintained that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Two Justice Department reports, one in 1973 and one in 2000, came to the same conclusion.

Those reports essentially concluded that the president’s responsibilities are so important that an indictment would pose too many risks for the government to function properly.

Trump’s lawyers have said that special counsel Robert Mueller plans to adhere to that guidance, though Mueller’s office has never independently confirmed that. Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has also said that a president cannot be indicted.

COULD TRUMP BE INDICTED ONCE HE LEAVES OFFICE?

There would presumably be no bar against charging a president after he leaves the White House.

Legal scholars have said that based on the Justice Department’s guidance, it would appear that Trump could be charged for wrongdoing during the campaign or as president once he leaves office, but likely not before that.

Blackman said the statute of limitations for a campaign finance law violation — like the one Cohen pleaded guilty to — would be five years. The payments to Daniels and McDougal were made in 2016, meaning the statute of limitations would run out in 2021.

Lawernce Tribe's argument is basically that the DOJ guidelines are unconstitutional. Its never been challenged. To answer your question above, no I can't because there is no such thing other than a DOJ "guideline" that states such. It would have to be challenged and the executive branch would argue that you can't indict a siitting president due to the importance of the role. Who knows? It'll be fast tracked to the SC and seeing how its stacked, it might be they'd agree with the DOJ. The issue I have is the precedent set would definitely result in an autocracy as what would keep a president "from shooting someone" or committing any number of other felonies, and a congress with firm majorities of the same party in both houses refusing to impeach?

this whole "importance of the role" reason sounds absurd to me. isn't that the whole point of having a VP?

One would think? But what if the VP is complicit/guilty too? Well, that’s why we have a line of succession. Uncharted territory.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

question: I understand that most legal experts claim that a sitting president cannot be indicted. (which I still don't get, where does it explicitly state that?). But what about a president who wants to run for a second term? can that be prevented by a legal filing?

I've heard that they can be indicted for crimes committed before they were President, just not from while they were president.... I'm not sure what is really legally accurate in any case though. I really really think that the Constitution and/or whatever else involves these rules needs a major overhaul in this context. I think the existing rules/laws/assumptions are all based on the assumption that Americans would never elect a moronic, senile, corrupt, compromised, sociopathic criminal with zero interest in serving the people. Trump has proven that assumption wrong. Time to update the documents.

That can be done through a Constitutional Convention or an Amendment, both are extremely high hurdles to pass.  its' part of the genius of the Founding Fathers, that the process has worked so well for so long.  And I'm not convinced it is not working.  A president can be removed from office for any high crimes and misdemeanors, which theoretically is a lower bar than indicting the POTUS for felonies.  If it is the type of compelling evidence that warrants the legal conviction standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" then surely we can get it through impeachment.  At this point, I don't believe enough evidence has been put forth to convict Trump of anything in the court of law.  

I don't think it's working. If it were, the POTUS wouldn't be able to get away with the crimes he's already committed as POTUS. Shit like influencing the stock market, continuing to profit from his businesses, which he's enriching with his position, which is a massive conflict of interest... ETC. The things Trump has done as POTUS are a real threat to America, and apparently nothing can stop him from doing these things.

I don't think that's true, that nothing can be done.  It's precisely why the impeachment process exists.  Remember the DOJ is part of the executive branch.  Regarding the stock market, unless he is violating SEC statutes based on his personal holdings, his remarks are not a crime.  For emoluments, there are clear laws and he has been sued for that.  I believe that is still moving forward.  Regardless, the process to remove a president is impeachment and that is clearly articulated in the Constitution. 

HughFreakingDillon

unfortunately impeachment also depends completely on a vote of congress. which can simply vote down party lines, and this one probably will. 

cincybearcat

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Why don’t the Dems just put forth a spending bill that includes verbiage of being for the wall once funding is secured from Mexico?

because trump claims mexico's funding of the wall will come from NAFTA 2.0. 

Then track the delta between old Nafta and new NAFTA and build the wall once you have the $. Put that wording in

dems don't want a wall. they want policy reform. a wall is not needed. 

calling his bluff won't do anything. 

Political win.

BUt let's be honest, Dems don't want policy reform.  C'mon...they like the status quo.

HughFreakingDillon

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Why don’t the Dems just put forth a spending bill that includes verbiage of being for the wall once funding is secured from Mexico?

because trump claims mexico's funding of the wall will come from NAFTA 2.0. 

Then track the delta between old Nafta and new NAFTA and build the wall once you have the $. Put that wording in

dems don't want a wall. they want policy reform. a wall is not needed. 

calling his bluff won't do anything. 

Political win.

BUt let's be honest, Dems don't want policy reform.  C'mon...they like the status quo.

I don't know how much of a political win it would be. 

how so? isn't it a talking point by the right that Obama deported more non-americans than any other president?

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

unfortunately impeachment also depends completely on a vote of congress. which can simply vote down party lines, and this one probably will. 

That's the thing... Frankly, I think the impeachment process is totally stupid. I feel that it's way too subjective and political. But obviously my opinion about that matters not.

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

unfortunately impeachment also depends completely on a vote of congress. which can simply vote down party lines, and this one probably will. 

possibly....if it is bad enough I think they will get enough GOP votes.  There should be enough GOP with spines to realize how vulnerable they would be in 2020 if they don't impeach.

eddiec

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Why don’t the Dems just put forth a spending bill that includes verbiage of being for the wall once funding is secured from Mexico?

because trump claims mexico's funding of the wall will come from NAFTA 2.0. 

Then track the delta between old Nafta and new NAFTA and build the wall once you have the $. Put that wording in

dems don't want a wall. they want policy reform. a wall is not needed. 

calling his bluff won't do anything. 

Political win.

BUt let's be honest, Dems don't want policy reform.  C'mon...they like the status quo.

I don't know how much of a political win it would be. 

how so? isn't it a talking point by the right that Obama deported more non-americans than any other president?

Is it? I don't think it was talked about much on Fox and right wing outlets. I often see conservatives post videos of Obama talking about being tough on immigration and the responses are generally along the lines of: what a hypocrite. So either it wasn't reported on conservative sites or they have forgotten. 

HughFreakingDillon

eddiec said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Why don’t the Dems just put forth a spending bill that includes verbiage of being for the wall once funding is secured from Mexico?

because trump claims mexico's funding of the wall will come from NAFTA 2.0. 

Then track the delta between old Nafta and new NAFTA and build the wall once you have the $. Put that wording in

dems don't want a wall. they want policy reform. a wall is not needed. 

calling his bluff won't do anything. 

Political win.

BUt let's be honest, Dems don't want policy reform.  C'mon...they like the status quo.

I don't know how much of a political win it would be. 

how so? isn't it a talking point by the right that Obama deported more non-americans than any other president?

Is it? I don't think it was talked about much on Fox and right wing outlets. I often see conservatives post videos of Obama talking about being tough on immigration and the responses are generally along the lines of: what a hypocrite. So either it wasn't reported on conservative sites or they have forgotten. 

I have seen it mentioned quite often here. and yes, the hypocrisy was mentioned, but in the opposite direction, that if he was so inclusive and welcoming why did he deport so many people?

cincybearcat

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Why don’t the Dems just put forth a spending bill that includes verbiage of being for the wall once funding is secured from Mexico?

because trump claims mexico's funding of the wall will come from NAFTA 2.0. 

Then track the delta between old Nafta and new NAFTA and build the wall once you have the $. Put that wording in

dems don't want a wall. they want policy reform. a wall is not needed. 

calling his bluff won't do anything. 

Political win.

BUt let's be honest, Dems don't want policy reform.  C'mon...they like the status quo.

I don't know how much of a political win it would be. 

how so? isn't it a talking point by the right that Obama deported more non-americans than any other president?

Reminding everyone that trump said Mexico would pay for the wall AND now he is shutting down the government till the US taxpayers pay for the wall.  

You know with trump you are right, it won't matter...but this is freakin crazy.

PJ_Soul

eddiec said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Why don’t the Dems just put forth a spending bill that includes verbiage of being for the wall once funding is secured from Mexico?

because trump claims mexico's funding of the wall will come from NAFTA 2.0. 

Then track the delta between old Nafta and new NAFTA and build the wall once you have the $. Put that wording in

dems don't want a wall. they want policy reform. a wall is not needed. 

calling his bluff won't do anything. 

Political win.

BUt let's be honest, Dems don't want policy reform.  C'mon...they like the status quo.

I don't know how much of a political win it would be. 

how so? isn't it a talking point by the right that Obama deported more non-americans than any other president?

Is it? I don't think it was talked about much on Fox and right wing outlets. I often see conservatives post videos of Obama talking about being tough on immigration and the responses are generally along the lines of: what a hypocrite. So either it wasn't reported on conservative sites or they have forgotten. 

I don't think conservatives like that talking point. It suggests that democrats actually don't want an open border (aka don't want to open the flood gates). That theory is a major tool to keep republicans angry and scared - they don't want GOPers thinking maybe the dems aren't going to let a billion refugees in the second they get the chance.

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

eddiec said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Why don’t the Dems just put forth a spending bill that includes verbiage of being for the wall once funding is secured from Mexico?

because trump claims mexico's funding of the wall will come from NAFTA 2.0. 

Then track the delta between old Nafta and new NAFTA and build the wall once you have the $. Put that wording in

dems don't want a wall. they want policy reform. a wall is not needed. 

calling his bluff won't do anything. 

Political win.

BUt let's be honest, Dems don't want policy reform.  C'mon...they like the status quo.

I don't know how much of a political win it would be. 

how so? isn't it a talking point by the right that Obama deported more non-americans than any other president?

Is it? I don't think it was talked about much on Fox and right wing outlets. I often see conservatives post videos of Obama talking about being tough on immigration and the responses are generally along the lines of: what a hypocrite. So either it wasn't reported on conservative sites or they have forgotten. 

I have seen it mentioned quite often here. and yes, the hypocrisy was mentioned, but in the opposite direction, that if he was so inclusive and welcoming why did he deport so many people?

I think it was more of a quid pro quo....he wanted more lenient rules for "dreamers" so he in turn was more strict on the non dreamers.

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unfortunately impeachment also depends completely on a vote of congress. which can simply vote down party lines, and this one probably will. 

possibly....if it is bad enough I think they will get enough GOP votes.  There should be enough GOP with spines to realize how vulnerable they would be in 2020 if they don't impeach.

Any institution can be corrupted by man.  The DOJ could cease all probes related to Trump.  The DOJ could order the arrest of Democratic leaders.  The House could have the Executive branch refuse its subpoenas and then ignore a SCOTUS ruling that is unfavorable.  Every institution we have in this country is built on the back of the integrity of the members.  If we lose that, the whole Constitution crumbles.  Therefore, the wisdom to rely (or not rely) on the impeachment process is just as wise and sound as relying on any of the other checks and balances embedded in teh founding documents.  

mrussel1

The risk to our country is not Trump directly, it is the members of Congress who carry the president's water.  I'm talking about Nunes, Hatch, Matt Gaetz, and the others who obstruct transparency in government or fail to condemn real issues.