Tiberius Posted May 11, 2020 Author Share Posted May 11, 2020 16 hours ago, Koko78 said: Gator's stupidity (and Reality Check's messing with his stupidity) aside, this is actually a pretty interesting legal question. Yes moron, it is an interesting question, thank you. Calling me stupid and then backing up the point all your little idiot friends denied is pretty funny. It shows how little self awareness you have. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 7 hours ago, KD in CA said: Oh yeah.....impeachment. Almost forgot. When is that supposed to happen again? It didn't. But only because Trump resigned in his first year just like everyone predicted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2020 Author Share Posted May 11, 2020 16 hours ago, Koko78 said: Gator's stupidity (and Reality Check's messing with his stupidity) aside, this is actually a pretty interesting legal question. It's fairly clear from the Federalist Papers that the Founding Fathers intended impeachment/removal to be the sole remedy while someone is a sitting president. Once they're removed from office, then they can be prosecuted. It makes little sense to have the president prosecuted in federal court by the Department of Justice... which he controls. It also prevents political asshattery from rogue federal prosecutors who simply do not agree with a policy decision (sound familiar?). A state charging a sitting president is a far more interesting question. With the concept of dual sovereigns, can a state charge a sitting president for committing a crime on that stat's semi-sovereign soil? Of course, if the answer is yes, then you have nakedly partisan and thoroughly corrupt asshats like Cy Vance inventing charges because the president sharted on 5th Avenue. Ultimately, the answer is going to be that no, a sitting president cannot be prosecuted by a state while he is in office. Any other ruling simply creates more nakedly-partisan chaos, and renders the office (and the federal government) meaningless. No president - or congress critter - will be able to function once political opponents in the states start criminalizing and prosecuting any pretextual "crime" for policy decisions/votes they don't like. Oh, and I made fried chicken. What part of the federalist papers are you referring to? Can you point us in that direction? I love how if Trump is investigated, it means the federal government is meaningless, ha ha. What does that even mean? This point of view declares a President can commit a crime, keep committing crimes, and no one would be allowed, by law, by precedent to even investigate it. For purely partisan purposes this opinion puts us on the road to creating an office that is immune from any oversight at all. And Trump is already doing it, he blithely declared his intention not to follow the law with transparency on the stimulus bill. Trump is even not sending his officers for confirmation. And now the Trump cult wants him totally immune. So much for the rule of law, it’s Trump Uber Allen’s for these people. To your misguided point that the president “controls” the DOJ, I’d say you have been drinking too much of Trump’s bleach. The president appoints the AG, but that doesn’t mean he controls the whole system, just ask Roger Stone about that. What happened with Flynn was pure corruption and is not how the system is suppose to work. Does this work with all public officials? If you are a politician, wouldn’t all this nonsense apply to all politicians? You claim that everything against Trump is simply partisan. So you want all politicians above the law, too? Should Blagovich of been prosecuted? Or do you admit you are being ultra partisan with your opinion and want to do whatever is possible to side with your favorite politician? (Don’t worry, I know you won’t answer that question, I’ll just assume you do want all politicians above the law.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality Check Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 11 minutes ago, Tiberius said: What part of the federalist papers are you referring to? Can you point us in that direction? I love how if Trump is investigated, it means the federal government is meaningless, ha ha. What does that even mean? This point of view declares a President can commit a crime, keep committing crimes, and no one would be allowed, by law, by precedent to even investigate it. For purely partisan purposes this opinion puts us on the road to creating an office that is immune from any oversight at all. And Trump is already doing it, he blithely declared his intention not to follow the law with transparency on the stimulus bill. Trump is even not sending his officers for confirmation. And now the Trump cult wants him totally immune. So much for the rule of law, it’s Trump Uber Allen’s for these people. To your misguided point that the president “controls” the DOJ, I’d say you have been drinking too much of Trump’s bleach. The president appoints the AG, but that doesn’t mean he controls the whole system, just ask Roger Stone about that. What happened with Flynn was pure corruption and is not how the system is suppose to work. Does this work with all public officials? If you are a politician, wouldn’t all this nonsense apply to all politicians? You claim that everything against Trump is simply partisan. So you want all politicians above the law, too? Should Blagovich of been prosecuted? Or do you admit you are being ultra partisan with your opinion and want to do whatever is possible to side with your favorite politician? (Don’t worry, I know you won’t answer that question, I’ll just assume you do want all politicians above the law.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 54 minutes ago, Tiberius said: What part of the federalist papers are you referring to? Can you point us in that direction? I love how if Trump is investigated, it means the federal government is meaningless, ha ha. What does that even mean? This point of view declares a President can commit a crime, keep committing crimes, and no one would be allowed, by law, by precedent to even investigate it. For purely partisan purposes this opinion puts us on the road to creating an office that is immune from any oversight at all. And Trump is already doing it, he blithely declared his intention not to follow the law with transparency on the stimulus bill. Trump is even not sending his officers for confirmation. And now the Trump cult wants him totally immune. So much for the rule of law, it’s Trump Uber Allen’s for these people. To your misguided point that the president “controls” the DOJ, I’d say you have been drinking too much of Trump’s bleach. The president appoints the AG, but that doesn’t mean he controls the whole system, just ask Roger Stone about that. What happened with Flynn was pure corruption and is not how the system is suppose to work. Does this work with all public officials? If you are a politician, wouldn’t all this nonsense apply to all politicians? You claim that everything against Trump is simply partisan. So you want all politicians above the law, too? Should Blagovich of have been prosecuted? Or do you admit you are being ultra partisan with your opinion and want to do whatever is possible to side with your favorite politician? (Don’t worry, I know you won’t answer that question, I’ll just assume you do want all politicians above the law.) When are you going to learn? How often do you need to be corrected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 8 hours ago, KD in CA said: Oh yeah.....impeachment. Almost forgot. When is that supposed to happen again? Expect it to happen again this summer. Then, if Trump wins, it will happen several more times in his second term. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 32 minutes ago, Tiberius said: What part of the federalist papers are you referring to? Can you point us in that direction? I love how if Trump is investigated, it means the federal government is meaningless, ha ha. What does that even mean? This point of view declares a President can commit a crime, keep committing crimes, and no one would be allowed, by law, by precedent to even investigate it. For purely partisan purposes this opinion puts us on the road to creating an office that is immune from any oversight at all. And Trump is already doing it, he blithely declared his intention not to follow the law with transparency on the stimulus bill. Trump is even not sending his officers for confirmation. And now the Trump cult wants him totally immune. So much for the rule of law, it’s Trump Uber Allen’s for these people. To your misguided point that the president “controls” the DOJ, I’d say you have been drinking too much of Trump’s bleach. The president appoints the AG, but that doesn’t mean he controls the whole system, just ask Roger Stone about that. What happened with Flynn was pure corruption and is not how the system is suppose to work. Does this work with all public officials? If you are a politician, wouldn’t all this nonsense apply to all politicians? You claim that everything against Trump is simply partisan. So you want all politicians above the law, too? Should Blagovich of been prosecuted? Or do you admit you are being ultra partisan with your opinion and want to do whatever is possible to side with your favorite politician? (Don’t worry, I know you won’t answer that question, I’ll just assume you do want all politicians above the law.) Tibs when did anyone insinuate that Governors could not be prosecuted? The executive privlege against prosecution goes back as least to Jefferson and it has been used by FDR based on his promoting Social Security, and Clinton with White Water to make him immune to prosecution so he can run our country. If Trump shot someone in broad daylight he could be impeached within a week and immediately turned over to local authorities at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2020 Author Share Posted May 11, 2020 19 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: When are you going to learn? How often do you need to be corrected? He's basically arguing a president can openly cheat at elections and if there isn't a super majority in the senate willing to stop him--though they might be cheering him on--there is no way to stop it because he is above the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2020 Author Share Posted May 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Buffalo Timmy said: Tibs when did anyone insinuate that Governors could not be prosecuted? The executive privlege against prosecution goes back as least to Jefferson and it has been used by FDR based on his promoting Social Security, and Clinton with White Water to make him immune to prosecution so he can run our country. If Trump shot someone in broad daylight he could be impeached within a week and immediately turned over to local authorities at that point. You are incorrect about Executive Privilege against prosecution. And Trump would never be convicted by the Senate for anything. Clinton was investigated and the courts allowed it, he had to give testimony. He was not above the law, this is new with Trump. As to governors or any elected officials, I'm just following the logic Koko laid out, if investigations are just partisan, then why only make Presidents above the law? I get koko loves Trump and his logic flows from that love, but it equally applies to all politicians, right? Or not? But if investigating corrupt people like Trump makes the government meaningless (as Koko says), then the states would supposidly be in the same boat, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You are incorrect about Executive Privilege against prosecution. And Trump would never be convicted by the Senate for anything. Clinton was investigated and the courts allowed it, he had to give testimony. He was not above the law, this is new with Trump. As to governors or any elected officials, I'm just following the logic Koko laid out, if investigations are just partisan, then why only make Presidents above the law? I get koko loves Trump and his logic flows from that love, but it equally applies to all politicians, right? Or not? But if investigating corrupt people like Trump makes the government meaningless (as Koko says), then the states would supposidly be in the same boat, right? Clinton did NOT have to give testimony at that time- he simply felt he could lie and no one would prove otherwise, then the dress showed up. Secondly me, Koko and others recognize that the President position is special so he gets special executive privlege that no one else gets. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2020 Author Share Posted May 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said: Clinton did NOT have to give testimony at that time- he simply felt he could lie and no one would prove otherwise, then the dress showed up. Secondly me, Koko and others recognize that the President position is special so he gets special executive privlege that no one else gets. He had to give terstimony, courts ruled the trial could move forward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: What part of the federalist papers are you referring to? Can you point us in that direction? Federalist Nos. 65 & 66. 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: Calling me stupid... Is exactly right, especially in light of the remainder of your response. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, Tiberius said: He had to give terstimony, courts ruled the trial could move forward He could have waited until his presidency ended but chose not to wait. Please stop with this concept that any president was not exempt WHILE president, it is sad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2020 Author Share Posted May 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Federalist Nos. 65 & 66. Is exactly right, especially in light of the remainder of your response. I'm not the one claiming a president can cheat in elections to win, and then he is safe to do it again as long as he is president. That's seriously stupid. And dangerous That's not how a republic works. A republic is a nation of laws, not a nation ruled by someone above the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2020 Author Share Posted May 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said: He could have waited until his presidency ended but chose not to wait. Please stop with this concept that any president was not exempt WHILE president, it is sad. Mr. Trump’s legal position contradicts clear Supreme Court precedent. In U.S. v. Nixon, a unanimous Supreme Court ordered President Richard Nixon to turn over Oval Office tapes subpoenaed by the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox. In Clinton v. Jones, a unanimous court held that a sitting president can be forced to testify in response to a subpoena in civil litigation. Taken together, these cases make it clear that the president is not immune from investigation, whether criminal or civil, while he is in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality Check Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Mr. Trump’s legal position contradicts clear Supreme Court precedent. In U.S. v. Nixon, a unanimous Supreme Court ordered President Richard Nixon to turn over Oval Office tapes subpoenaed by the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox. In Clinton v. Jones, a unanimous court held that a sitting president can be forced to testify in response to a subpoena in civil litigation. Taken together, these cases make it clear that the president is not immune from investigation, whether criminal or civil, while he is in office. ...and then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Mr. Trump’s legal position contradicts clear Supreme Court precedent. In U.S. v. Nixon, a unanimous Supreme Court ordered President Richard Nixon to turn over Oval Office tapes subpoenaed by the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox. In Clinton v. Jones, a unanimous court held that a sitting president can be forced to testify in response to a subpoena in civil litigation. Taken together, these cases make it clear that the president is not immune from investigation, whether criminal or civil, while he is in office. Gleeful Gator, you idiot. Have you ever heard of a fishing expedition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2020 Author Share Posted May 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Gleeful Gator, you idiot. Have you ever heard of a fishing expedition? Every criminal investigation is called that by someone, tired You shouldn't call your betters idiots. But, what else can the lowly do, I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 11, 2020 Share Posted May 11, 2020 Lets get back to the subject of this thread. Meat. Tibs, what is your favorite smoked meat? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2020 Author Share Posted May 11, 2020 Just now, Wacka said: Lets get back to the subject of this thread. Meat. Tibs, what is your favorite smoked meat? You are trash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts