Trump v Vance

[Tiberius]

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. 

 

 

[Joe Miner]

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.

 

[Tiberius]

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.) 

 

[Reality Check]

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.) 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

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? 

[KRC]

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.

[Orlando Tim]

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. 

[Tiberius]

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.

[Tiberius]

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? 

 

[Orlando Tim]

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.

[Tiberius]

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 

[Koko78]

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.

[Orlando Tim]

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.

[Tiberius]

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 

[Tiberius]

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.

[Reality Check]

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?

[3rdnlng]

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? 

[Tiberius]

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 

[Wacka]

Lets get back to the subject of this thread.  Meat. Tibs, what is your favorite smoked meat?

[Tiberius]

Just now, Wacka said:

Lets get back to the subject of this thread.  Meat. Tibs, what is your favorite smoked meat?

You are trash 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

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 

Whatever gets you through the day. Just ponder this for a moment: You are made fun of here everyday and are PPP's laughingstock. 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

Whatever gets you through the day. Just ponder this for a moment: You are made fun of here everyday and are PPP's laughingstock. 

Well, just by the lower half of the board, so, like, so what. 

 

You come in here everyday and demonstrate yourself to be an irrational hysteric with serious mental issues and it does not seem to bother you too much. 

[Chef Jim]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Well, just by the lower half of the board, so, like, so what. 

 

You come in here everyday and demonstrate yourself to be an irrational hysteric with serious mental issues and it does not seem to bother you too much. 

And by the lower half you mean the upper 3/4’s right? 
 

Clueless. 

[Koko78]

43 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

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 

 

The only morons claiming that "a president can cheat in elections to win" are the dumbschiffs on the left who can't understand that "OMGRUSSIA!" was a hoax started by the Clinton smear machine, of which there is overwhelming evidence.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

The only morons claiming that "a president can cheat in elections to win" are the dumbschiffs on the left who can't understand that "OMGRUSSIA!" was a hoax started by the Clinton smear machine, of which there is overwhelming evidence.

[Tiberius]

13 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

The only morons claiming that "a president can cheat in elections to win" are the dumbschiffs on the left who can't understand that "OMGRUSSIA!" was a hoax started by the Clinton smear machine, of which there is overwhelming evidence.

You are claiming it you idiot! You are saying he can't be held accountable while president even if he cheated to get there. 

 

Or are you changing your answer? So if a presidential candidate breaks the law to win, once he is president, he is in the clear until he leaves office, even if he cheats to win a second term. That's your position. 

 

So funny 

[Koko78]

Just now, Tiberius said:

You are claiming it you idiot! You are saying he can't be held accountable while president even if he cheated to get there. 

 

Or are you changing your answer? So if a presidential candidate breaks the law to win, once he is president, he is in the clear until he leaves office, even if he cheats to win a second term. That's your position. 

 

So funny 

 

Do you even understand what Cy Vance is pretending to investigate?

[Orlando Tim]

54 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.

I am not sure what this source is- probably your own imagination- but the right wing extremist at the NY times itself states Clinton voluntarily testified at the trial. He could have kept the subpoenas until he was done as president but did not. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/us/politics/clinton-testimony-grand-jury.amp.html

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

You are claiming it you idiot! You are saying he can't be held accountable while president even if he cheated to get there. 

 

Or are you changing your answer? So if a presidential candidate breaks the law to win, once he is president, he is in the clear until he leaves office, even if he cheats to win a second term. That's your position. 

 

So funny 

The neat thing is that all Trump has to do is to make an Executive Order extending his term another several years. He can thank Obama for making what would have been previously unconstitutional now constitutional. On the same note McConnell should thank Harry Reid for allowing him to get 100's of judges and 2 SCOTUS justices approved. You dems really know how to grease the skids for the republicans. 

[B-Man]

[Tiberius]

4 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Federalist Nos. 65 & 66.

 

Did you have a specific section of those to sight? Because Impeachment in Federalist 65 clearly states that impeachment will be for POLITICAL crimes against society 

 

Quote

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. 

This does not in anyway claim civil law is canceled for one man just because he is president, it allows for corruption, abuse of power and such to be addressed. The civil law still prevails. 

And from 66, boy did they foresee this Trump crowd coming!

 

Quote

 

So far as might concern the misbehavior of the Executive in perverting the instructions or contravening the views of the Senate, we need not be apprehensive of the want of a disposition in that body to punish the abuse of their confidence or to vindicate their own authority. We may thus far count upon their pride, if not upon their virtue. ?And so far even as might concern the corruption of leading members, by whose arts and influence the majority may have been inveigled into measures odious to the community, if the proofs of that corruption should be satisfactory, the usual propensity of human nature will warrant us in concluding that there would be commonly no defect of inclination in the body to divert the public resentment from themselves by a ready sacrifice of the authors of their mismanagement and disgrace.

PUBLIUS.

 

 

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

1) That's a justice department opinion not a constitutional fact 

 

2) She is much, much smarter than Trump. Her daddy didn't leave her $450 though 

[Chef Jim]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

You are claiming it you idiot! You are saying he can't be held accountable while president even if he cheated to get there. 

 

Or are you changing your answer? So if a presidential candidate breaks the law to win, once he is president, he is in the clear until he leaves office, even if he cheats to win a second term. That's your position. 

 

So funny 

 

If the President breaks a law to win the election is that considered a High Crime and/or Misdemeanor?  

Edited May 11, 2020 by Chef Jim

[Tiberius]

4 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I am not sure what this source is- probably your own imagination- but the right wing extremist at the NY times itself states Clinton voluntarily testified at the trial. He could have kept the subpoenas until he was done as president but did not. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/us/politics/clinton-testimony-grand-jury.amp.html

No, the court ruled he was not immune 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

4 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Do you even understand what Cy Vance is pretending to investigate?

Yes, and you are desperate to change the subject. Lame, lol 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

On 5/9/2020 at 10:07 AM, Joe in Winslow said:

Was considering an electric box for convenience. Thoughts? Really interested in trying to make my own kielbasa.

 

 

 

...have both an electric box and pellet smoker.......use electric for smaller stuff but the pellet unit is great for larger stuff..........

[Orlando Tim]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

No, the court ruled he was not immune 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

 

Do you even read what you link to? It states the court can not compel him to show up to court and he can put it off if he shows it will interfere with his constitutional duties, he chose not to allow his lawyers to handle it until his term was over. 

[Chef Jim]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Yes, and you are desperate to change the subject. Lame, lol 

 

Change the subject?  Good lord man! This is the subject of the thread YOU started.  

[realtruelove]

I have this squirrel that keeps digging up the flowers in the planters hanging from the railing on my deck.  Every day I go back out and fix the planters and replant the flowers and every day the squirrel comes back and digs them up.  I named her Tiberius.

[B-Man]

4 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

 

Do you even read what you link to?

 

 

No he does not.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Chef Jim]

2 hours ago, realtruelove said:

I have this squirrel that keeps digging up the flowers in the planters hanging from the railing on my deck.  Every day I go back out and fix the planters and replant the flowers and every day the squirrel comes back and digs them up.  I named her Tiberius.

Hmmmm. Now if you hit her over the head with a rock every time she dug up your flowers and she still came back?  Then and only then would she be worthy of the name Tiberius. 

[SectionC3]

11 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Whatever gets you through the day. Just ponder this for a moment: You are made fun of here everyday and are PPP's laughingstock. 

 

He's not the guy with the tiny baby hands problem.  So I'm not so sure about the laughingstock thing. 

13 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

When are you going to learn? How often do you need to be corrected? 

 

Maybe you should brush up on the serial comma before you put on the grammar police badge tonight.  

11 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

The only morons claiming that "a president can cheat in elections to win" are the dumbschiffs on the left who can't understand that "OMGRUSSIA!" was a hoax started by the Clinton smear machine, of which there is overwhelming evidence.

 

Obstruction of justice was a hoax?