A Racist... A Conman... and a Cheat

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
So, the president is above the law, if his party allows it? Could he murder and get away with it until he's voted out of office? Somehow I think the Supremes would rule that nobody's above the law.
there are questions about that, but most of what i have read is that the president is protected from frivolous law suits and charges designed to subvert his ability to carry out his office...if he commits a crime like murder, i'm pretty sure he would be bounced out of office so fast it wouldn't even slow down the proceedings...
 

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
So, the president is above the law, if his party allows it?
No. You're not reading.

Regardless of who controls what, the instant the president is out of office, he's fair game. Impeachment is a long, tedious process.

For instance, the investigation into Nixon actually began in mid June of 1972. The actual impeachment didn't start until February 6th of 1974. He didn't resign until August 8th of 1974, nearly two-and-a-half years after the whole Watergate investigation had begun.

What we have here is the very beginning of that same process. What we saw yesterday in Cohen testifying is pretty much that same initial hearing back in June of '72. I'm estimating that it will be at least the end of the year before they will have enough to begin the impeachment process, which I'm sure Trump will fight to the bitter end.

So I'm of the opinion that Trump will finish out his first term, but never have a shot in hell of being reelected, because even if he is he's a goner. And mark my words: If he's under impeachment when the election rolls around, the entire GOP will turn on him. They're not going to back a guy that is going to be removed the instant the election is over.

The founding fathers knew full well that if you could charge the president and have him have to make bail, hire attorneys, prepare a defense, etc., etc., etc., then it wouldn't take a whole lot to get law enforcement officials to nickle and dime any president to death to the point he'd never have time to take a shit, let alone anything else.

So, no. He's not above the law. The law simply has to wait.

But the beauty of it is this: the statute of limitations on any crime the president commits doesn't start until the day he leaves office. So keep the faith. He's going to get his, we just have to wait a while for it.
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
what?

The precedent is from 1973 when Watergate started and Spiro Agnew was VP.

Agnew was busted on a Maryland kickback scheme and the DOJ decided a VP could be indicted but the POTUS could not.

And it's actually unsettled law, if you want to get right down to it.

A 1973 precedent, never challenged.
They were never able to prove that Nixon actually broke into any offices in the Watergate. Another Deep State victory.

BTW, No Collusion!
 

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
there are questions about that, but most of what i have read is that the president is protected from frivolous law suits and charges designed to subvert his ability to carry out his office...if he commits a crime like murder, i'm pretty sure he would be bounced out of office so fast it wouldn't even slow down the proceedings...
Wasn't sitting president Bill Clinton deposed in 1998 from a civil suit involving sex with someone?

I think there's a difference between civil and criminal charges.
 

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
View attachment 4290630
I make a motion that Jim Jordan is a stupid Trump sucking asshole who doesn't represent the best interests of his district.
What's up with this that I have no respect for the institution that I swore an oath to, so I won't wear a fucking jacket to this meeting shit?
What, he's representing his constituents that can't afford to buy or wear a fucking jacket?
What the fuck is that about?
Oh yea, I remember now!
He was that tough guy college wrestling coach that ignored sexual abuse, or did I misread something?
Another fucking Trump cunt, whose district should be Napalmed out of existence.
I'm totally for that, MAGA!.
 

topcat

Well-Known Member
So, no. He's not above the law. The law simply has to wait.
You're still saying he can commit crimes for the time he's in office and not be subject to the law, if his party won't convict in the impeachment procedure. You have more conviction than I that the GOP will turn on him. I don't see it happening. The "can't be indicted" comes from a Dept. of Justice policy, not a law. I hope to see the Supreme Court rule on this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
You're still saying he can commit crimes for the time he's in office and not be subject to the law, if his party won't convict in the impeachment procedure. You have more conviction than I that the GOP will turn on him. I don't see it happening. The "can't be indicted" comes from a Dept. of Justice policy, not a law. I hope to see the Supreme Court rule on this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html
If anybody or any organization wants to pursue an indictment and try him on charges, is there anything stopping them from doing so? The clock is running on Trump's presidency. By the time charges could be leveled, they would have maybe 18 months before the elections.

Whether the action is impeachment followed by conviction followed by removal from office or an indictment where it's not even clear if a president CAN be indicted, I just don't see this getting done before the end of 2020 what with counter-suits, appeals, challenges and so forth. The value would lie in effect on the electorate and the election. Which in and of itself is good enough for me to say "go for it".
 

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
You're still saying he can commit crimes for the time he's in office and not be subject to the law
Wrong.

Are you reading impaired?

What do you think all of these hearings are about?

They're investigating him right now. If they find cause, he will be impeached and then charged.

The typical murder investigation can take years, and many times decades to be resolved.

Does that mean the murderer was above the law because the cops didn't slap cuffs on him while his hands were still bloody?

No. It doesn't.

This isn't Law and Order. They don't investigate, cuff, arrest, charge, arraign, try and convict in 1 hour with several commercial breaks.

There is a process. It takes time, but it works. You're simply being unrealistic, unreasonable, sensationalist and whiny.
 

topcat

Well-Known Member
Wrong.

Are you reading impaired?

What do you think all of these hearings are about?

They're investigating him right now. If they find cause, he will be impeached and then charged.

The typical murder investigation can take years, and many times decades to be resolved.

Does that mean the murderer was above the law because the cops didn't slap cuffs on him while his hands were still bloody?

No. It doesn't.

This isn't Law and Order. They don't investigate, cuff, arrest, charge, arraign, try and convict in 1 hour with several commercial breaks.

There is a process. It takes time, but it works. You're simply being unrealistic, unreasonable, sensationalist and whiny.
Sorry to offend.
 

too larry

Well-Known Member
i like very little that you say, usually, but this is true.
i don't know what i'd do if i found a news site that actually just presented you with the facts and let you draw your own conclusions....probably marry it...
Roger, this is the News Hour. News Hour, Roger.
 

too larry

Well-Known Member
Wrong.

Are you reading impaired?

What do you think all of these hearings are about?

They're investigating him right now. If they find cause, he will be impeached and then charged.

The typical murder investigation can take years, and many times decades to be resolved.

Does that mean the murderer was above the law because the cops didn't slap cuffs on him while his hands were still bloody?

No. It doesn't.

This isn't Law and Order. They don't investigate, cuff, arrest, charge, arraign, try and convict in 1 hour with several commercial breaks.

There is a process. It takes time, but it works. You're simply being unrealistic, unreasonable, sensationalist and whiny.
These hearings are political theater. Just because they are making public the many laws broken does not change that. If it was fact finding they were after, closed door hearing always work so much better.

Impeachment is a political proceeding, not legal. Since the GOP control the Senate there will be no conviction unless the GOP decides it's safer to dump him than to keep carrying his water. If and when that happens it will be a political decision.

Anyway, if 45 were to be impeached, his VP would grant him immunity. The Southern District of NY is the best bet of him paying for his crimes.
 

doublejj

Well-Known Member
You're still saying he can commit crimes for the time he's in office and not be subject to the law, if his party won't convict in the impeachment procedure. You have more conviction than I that the GOP will turn on him. I don't see it happening. The "can't be indicted" comes from a Dept. of Justice policy, not a law. I hope to see the Supreme Court rule on this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html
The Supreme Court has been compromised by trump and the republicans and their appointments and the court is not longer legitimate. Cannot be counted on to rule fairly....we are now in WROL times
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
These hearings are political theater. Just because they are making public the many laws broken does not change that. If it was fact finding they were after, closed door hearing always work so much better.

Impeachment is a political proceeding, not legal. Since the GOP control the Senate there will be no conviction unless the GOP decides it's safer to dump him than to keep carrying his water. If and when that happens it will be a political decision.

Anyway, if 45 were to be impeached, his VP would grant him immunity. The Southern District of NY is the best bet of him paying for his crimes.
Agree. They aren't going to impeach-convict-remove from office. The political value of these hearings is greater than any possible use it could have in an impeachment proceeding. Video of Cohen's testimony where he describes his version of the events backed with evidence should be heard because it has more impact than some leaked information from "anonymous source".
 
Top