I dare anyone here to point to what members of this administration didn’t lie about knowing Flynn’s involvement with the Russians during the transition period..go ahead try it
As a side note... I've never heard anyone say 'wall' as many times as I heard him say it in that 16 minute clip.
But to the clip... just wow. And want to know another wow? There are people saying, "yes. Yes. Absolutely. Amen, Donald!"
I'd like to hear the alternative plan that was briefly alluded to, but it sounds like the orange one isn't prepared to hear anything except something that sees his massive campaign promise come to fruition. I'm also curious to know exactly how much republican support he has at this moment for his vision?
I like that they had to explain to a repub member of Congress that the iPhone is made by Apple. I don’t think it’s as much an age issue as it is of trying to understand how the world around you works.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
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?
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?
It's going to make for a fucked up campaign in 2020. If people think Trump was bad before, just wait until he is campaigning to stay out of jail. Shit is gonna get dark.
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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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?
It’s never happened and would most likely end up in the SC. Lawrence Tribe recently wrote an op-Ed stating that a sitting POTUS can and should be indicted upon submittal of evidence and that our democracy, via the constitution, demands it. He makes a good argument.
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 wondered that as well. I keep hearing that a president CAN be indicted from other sources so it might still be up in the air.
Seriously though...if the President murdered someone he couldn't be indicted for it? Makes no sense.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
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?
It’s never happened and would most likely end up in the SC. Lawrence Tribe recently wrote an op-Ed stating that a sitting POTUS can and should be indicted upon submittal of evidence and that our democracy, via the constitution, demands it. He makes a good argument.
can you tell me what document states that a sitting president can't 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.
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?
Brilliant!
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
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.
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?
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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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?
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.
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.
Comments
wow
As a side note... I've never heard anyone say 'wall' as many times as I heard him say it in that 16 minute clip.
But to the clip... just wow. And want to know another wow? There are people saying, "yes. Yes. Absolutely. Amen, Donald!"
I'd like to hear the alternative plan that was briefly alluded to, but it sounds like the orange one isn't prepared to hear anything except something that sees his massive campaign promise come to fruition. I'm also curious to know exactly how much republican support he has at this moment for his vision?
Google CEO Had To Explain To Congress Why Googling ‘Idiot’ Shows Donald Trump
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/idiot-donald-trump-google-ceo-sundar-pichai_us_5c10d56de4b0ac53717a0d26Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Seriously though...if the President murdered someone he couldn't be indicted for it? Makes no sense.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
www.headstonesband.com
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
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.
www.headstonesband.com
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
calling his bluff won't do anything.
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
BUt let's be honest, Dems don't want policy reform. C'mon...they like the status quo.